Dirtiest things to say to your boyfriend

Hello,
I posted here a while ago. I'm married (1 year) to my DW (together for 5 years). She has SS (12), who is severely disabled. No walking, talking, eating by himself, wears a diaper etc. He sits in a wheelchair but has to have support on his chest with a belt so he doesn't fall over.
When I got together with DW, he was with us every other weekend. BM decided a year ago it was to much for her and now he is with us every other week. I support DW with everything I can, finances, doing more housework, sometimes I feed or even wash him. I don't watch over him alone because he has severe epilepsy and his seizures are really heavy.
I feel bad a lot of times because I can't really care for him in a medical way (and, to be honest, I don't want this responsibility). DW is exhausted, she is working every other week full time and when he is here part time.
We have nurses who go to school with him and care for him after school till DW comes home. Recently it is hard to find new nurses because one got pregnant and the last few where not able to care for him properly.
BM still get's full child support, because here in my country child services help with calculating the amount of child support, but they are very slow. I told DW to go to a lawyer but she is kind of procrastinating on contacting one. I understand she is very stressed and has so much to organize, but because of that she struggles financially. I support the best I can, and she doesn't want me to support her more, but we can't do stuff we did before and it makes me sad.
In the past I tried to suggest solutions but often DW get's angry with that. I said maybe there are residental home who take him part time, and he is where at the weekend, but she said she doesn't want me to "plant this thought inside her head".
BM is only coping with the situation because she is living off child support and has every other week for herself,, she doesn't have a job.
It makes me angry but my suggestions always end in an argument.
So I read about nachoing and I recently began to just listen to DW and say something like "Oh, this sounds hard." or "Tell me if I can do anything for you". But I don't take action by myself. I still do most of the cooking, groceries, cleaning, organization etc. I also bought SS some clothes. But I'm not always there, "nagging" to find a lawyer. I just listen and then I kind of...push away the thought and do my thing.
I feel very bad because I see DW getting more exhausted every day and I think she will get a "caregiver burnout". We have a few couple moments and I enjoy them. But sometimes, when DW has to stay at home when SS condition is very bad, I visit another friend or my family or do something outside the house...I feel bad for letting her alone with him. Because, you can't really interact with him. Yes, he grabs your hand or a toy and he laughs sometimes. But beside that, he is just not able to really do...anything. You can interact, but his ability to respond is very limited and it makes you feel like talking to yourself.
I sound like a big *** but I just don't want my life to be miserable. I love DW and love couple time, but nachoing is the only approach with which I can cope with this situation.

Your average 22yo guy over here living in Germany, really slow and boring day at work so how about we get to know each other a little and see where it goes ?
I like all the basic things like music, movies, with the addition of reading and writing (aspiring author)
Oh also, I'm gay :) (no dad jokes pls)
Say more than hi when you message me so I know you're not a bot, but I'll probably respond regardless.
Adults only pls!
See ya soon!

Hi all. Every day I see people saying they struggle with bots and how they just aren’t fun. As a certified bot diver, I know how those missions can turn into absolute disasters in a second. However, there is a loadout that I think is the most flexible and efficient in almost all situations that I think will greatly help you and might even change your mind about playing bots. If not, at least I tried. This is what I take with myself when I just want to win.
A summary first, then some explanations.
Armour: heavy fortified (explosion resistance) Primary: Pummeler SMG Secondary: grenade pistol Grenade: stun
Stratagems: ballistic shield, AMR, rest to taste. I like Eagle airstrike and railcannon.
Armour: go heavy. While mobility is everything against the bugs, positioning is everything against bots. Speed isn’t essential, so pick protection. The Fortified perk gives you explosion resistance which is crucial because trust me, there will be times when it feels like the entire world is blowing up around you. There is also the white heavier medium suit whose name I forget, that one works well too if you find yourself too slow.
Primary: the Pummeler. If you don’t have it, the Defender works well too. They both reliably kill everything except the following: hulks, tanks, scout striders, factory striders. The reason we’re taking the Pummeler instead of the higher DPS Defender is the stagger effect it has. Its time to kill isn’t fantastic but you can lock down groups of enemies by alternating between them, kind of like how you used to with the pre-nerf Slugger. The reason for taking an SMG in the first place is the ballistic shield. More on that later.
Secondary: the grenade pistol. Two reasons: fabricators and close scout striders. We’re not bringing other explosives, so the GP is our factory killer besides any Eagles or orbitals you might take. Its real strength, however, is its ability to one-shot scout striders at ranges too close for the AMR. It’s not always consistent and you might have to hit them another time, but that’s not a problem because you’ll be reloading behind your shield, which the striders cannot penetrate. You can also use it against devastators but probably not much, since it does have limited ammo. Although it is fun arcing a grenade over a heavy dev shield and nailing them in the face.
Grenade: stun. We’re taking this for hulk hunting. I don’t know how long exactly the stun is, but it’s really good. Easily long enough to switch to the AMR, line up a shot, fire, line up another, and fire again. No more hulk. It can also shut down groups of smaller enemies but that’s mostly handled by our primary.
Now for the stratagems.
Ballistic shield: this is the centerpiece of the loadout. Underrated, underutilised, unbelievably good. This thing is bulletproof, literally. It will block everything ranged except explosions and fire. Small arms? No problem. Raider or heavy dev machine guns? Ping right off. Scout strider cannons, tank MGs, even the heavy frontal miniguns on factory striders? Not getting through this bad boy. The best thing about it is that it’s directional, meaning that you can choose which side you want to protect. Just carrying it covers your left, aiming covers your front, and pulling out your support weapon covers your back.
Now I did say it doesn’t work against explosives. This is a downside, but that’s why we’re bringing armour with the fortified perk. I suggest against trying to block rockets and cannons since they can break the shield, but this is unlikely to happen if you use it as intended. It’s also useless against flamethrowers, which is why we’re carrying stun grenades for disabling and hopefully eliminating those hulks that carry them.
What’s great about bringing the shield is that it makes you think about your positioning in a way fighting bugs never does. Against bugs you run and kite, never stopping because if you do, you’re dead. Against bots, this will not work. You will be killed, over and over again. You have to be slower, more methodical. Unlike bugs, bots are easy to outrun, but if they catch you out of cover, especially if they get a flank on you, you’re toast. With the shield, however, you can pick the weaker flank, take a deep breath, and attack them instead of them attacking you. What’s neat about this is that this tactic is viable even without the shield but doing it with it first builds up your skill and especially confidence; it’s a bit daunting at first.
I could ramble on and on about the ballistic shield but I think I’ve gone on long enough already. Let’s move on to the last part of the loadout, which is...
The anti-materiel rifle, or AMR: yes, materiEl. In my opinion, the true Swiss army knife of the automaton front. Some might protest and say the autocannon is it. I disagree, because while the AC is a great weapon, it lacks two things the AMR has: a free backpack slot needed for the shield, and good sights. If I’m not bringing the shield, I do take the AC sometimes. Despite its name, the AMR is perfectly good against personnel too. Since we’re bringing an SMG, we’ll be using the AMR for long-range chaff clear too. It’s also usable, if not ideal, for close range, although the massive recoil makes it challenging for that purpose. Still, if you get cornered with it you can forsake accuracy and just mag dump anything in front of you and chances are it’ll work because despite appearances, this thing has an insane fire rate. It’s not ammo efficient, but it’s better than dying. However, we’ll primarily be using the AMR for precise shots at weak points. It kills all devastators with one shot to the head, scout striders with one or two shots to where the legs attach, and hulks with two shots to the optic. It destroys the factory strider’s miniguns with four-ish shots, kills them outright with one and a half mags to the underside. It downs gunships with four to an engine. It’s useless against tanks unless you can get a shot at the backs of their turrets, but we still have two unused stratagem slots for those.
As for those, nothing else is “mandatory" for this build so pick what you like or what suits the mission. I like the basic Eagle strike because of its utility in killing everything. The railcannon is great for those moments when you see a hulk you want to absolutely, positively just delete in an instant. Precision strike works wonders against tanks, as do the 110mm rockets. 120mm is great for groups and factory striders. 380mm levels big bases and stuff like dropship depots and command bunkers. You get the idea.
So there you have it, IMO the most versatile bot loadout you can bring. As I said, this is my win button for when I’m not interested in experimenting and just want to get the job done. It’s effective and it’s fun. If you’re a bugdiver struggling against the socialist menace or just need something different to mix up your Scorcher & AC life, give it a try. I promise you won’t be disappointed. Any questions, feel free to ask. SES Queen of the Stars, over and out.

After 2 years, I (M24) broke up with my girlfriend (F22). It was a beautiful and healthy relationship at the beginning, but it changed beyond recognition. Over time, she began to show her toxic, manipulative, and narcissistic nature. The whole world revolved around her, she could never admit her mistakes, and she blamed others for everything. She constantly blamed her parents for her anxieties, saying they didn't listen to her, understand her, or care if she was sad during her childhood. This is not true at all.
To clarify, we lived together in an apartment for about 6 months. The first two months were great, and she helped with household chores and cooking. But after those two months, something broke. When she came home from work, she would lie in bed all day watching TikToks and reality shows. I took care of the entire household—cooking, cleaning, and everything else. The only thing she occasionally did was laundry, and even then, I had to push and beg her to do it. Our sex life suddenly ended, and we didn't have sex for about 2 months. I've always been the type who likes to cuddle and have close contact with my partner. I could only cuddle her when she wanted to; if she didn't, she would just say that she was comfortable and didn't want to be touched.
She was nice only when she needed something; on those days, things were okay with her. But the next day, when she didn't need anything, she was withdrawn and indifferent. I tried to do everything for her, often driving her to and from work, buying her gifts, and getting her whatever she craved. I tried to be her support, but toward the end, she started rejecting it. It's weird because she kept telling me she loved me. About a month ago, she told me she loved me but couldn't fall in love with me. She said the problem was within her and that often, even when I did or said nothing, I annoyed her. This hurt me deeply, and I considered ending it back then.
Meanwhile, she started chatting with her ex-boyfriend, whom she met at a bar while out with her friend. They had a bad breakup, but they supposedly cleared things up and became friends, chatting every day since then. I felt strange and bad about it. Her relationship with me felt like it was out of principle, and she was just using me. She was only nice when she needed something. A week ago, she went on vacation to Turkey with her family, a trip I couldn't attend. We got her passport and everything ready together. On the first day of the vacation, she texted and called me, and I saw she was happy, which made me very happy. But after the first day, she only messaged me once every two days. When she returned from Turkey, I was on a hike with her dad. When I got home, I went to take a nap, and she was at her parents' place. I woke up to her knocking, standing there with three friends. I didn't get a kiss or a hug. She immediately left with her friends to go to a bar. I heard some quiet mocking and smirks but didn't address it. She closed the door, and everything hit me—all the sadness and melancholy of the past months. I felt like crap. I unpacked her suitcase with tears in my eyes, packed my things, and called my dad to come get me. I had a few beers on the hike and didn't want to risk driving. I texted her that I was going home. Her response was that she fully understood.
She had already told me that she was sorry for her behavior but didn't know any other way and that I didn't deserve this. Yesterday, I went back to clarify things and get the rest of my stuff. She told me that during her time in Turkey, she didn't miss me at all and didn't feel the need to text me. She realized then that this wasn't how it should be. We shed a few tears, and she asked if she could cuddle with me one last time, which broke my heart. I felt like crap. She helped me pack my things, and I left. She's probably going to stay with a friend. We were renting this apartment, so we'll just cancel the lease.
On the hike, her dad told me he was very happy that she found a guy like me and that he was sorry for how she was treating me. Even though she's his daughter, he said I didn't deserve this and should pack up and leave. He said she was like her mother and that I didn't want to end up like him. He told her the same thing when she came home—that she shouldn't treat me like trash and should either start acting normal or break up. Her mother told her she hoped she'd find another tyrant who would bully her and make her life hell like all her previous boyfriends.
Sorry for the long text, but I needed to vent and also put my thoughts together in case I need to remind myself why this was the right decision. There are probably many mistakes, so I apologize. English is not my first language, and this is my first experience with Reddit. Thank you for your feedback.

My boyfriends ex turned up at his house to tell him his mum had passed away a month ago and had a conversation about her will and stuff. He then ended the conversation asking for his number which for whatever reason my boyfriend gave it to him.
So I confronted him about it and said I felt uncomfortable with him doing that. He reassured me it wasn’t for him and it was for his aunt kim who he was close with. He has had messages from her which he has told me about.
My problem now is I knew there was something he was hiding. I don’t wanna sound controlling or obsessive but I needed to know for my sake he wasn’t messaging his ex I checked his phone when he left the room and there his name was my heart sank as not only did he say he wouldn’t message him but he would block him if he tried to contact him he was also messaging him back and forth. The context of the conversation was non sexual or flirtatious in nature however it was clear his ex wants to reconnect to a sense.
His ex was sending kisses on the end of some messages sending selfies to him. From the brief conversation I saw my partner didn’t really entertain it although something that concerned me was that they are gonna meet up at some point as I saw a message from his ex saying he cannot wait to see him. I don’t know what to do.
If I confront him he will know I’ve seen his messages but if I pretend non of this is happening what happens if they get together I feel so sick I don’t know what to do as my boyfriend has lied to me about not talking to him and not seeing him when he is makes me believe that there’s something happening I’ve just not long come out of a toxic relationship so I really cannot be bothered with another person who says one thing and then does another.

Since I already expect to be beaten by other fans, I will try to express this theory of mine in a very schematic way step by step
A) Apparently, although there are many nuances and even conflicting sources, we can say that the Jedi and the Sith have at their base two different motivations for acting: in theory, and i underline "in theory", Jedi are moved by altruism, by the idea to act for a greater good, are at the service of the community, give great importance to inner serenity, etc The Sith on the other hand, generally and i underline "generally", are driven by the desire to fully experience their emotions and satisfy their personal passions
B) However, this should not automatically lead all Sith to be evil: living following one's emotions and passions is not necessarily bad. Modern psychology would classify this type of behavior as "Dionysian", which is contrasted with the other classical behavior which is "Apollonian". But these two terms are in no way synonymous with good or evil. So why should a path based on emotions and passions, even emotions and passions of a personal nature, necessarily lead to evil ?
C) I'll give you some examples: a revolutionary who fights for freedom is driven by a great passion, the classic avenger of the night is often driven by a personal revenge against evil. A person who dedicates himself to becoming the greatest sportsman in the world or to becoming an excellent artist is dedicating his entire life to a personal passion and probably also has very strong emotional reasons for doing so but this does not necessarily make him a person evil. In short: there are not only negative personal desires and negative personal emotions, such as ambition, anger, etc Imagine if Anakin had simply killed the desert raiders who killed his mother, but without touching the women and children of that tribe. His act, driven by a strong emotion, would have been less negative and fit into the stereotype of the "avenger of the night": who is a dark hero, almost an anti-hero we could say, but certainly not a villain. The "road warrior" or the Punisher or the Gatsu model character from Berserk would fit perfectly into this category

D) I'll give a direct example of a popular character from another saga, who however has several points in common with a very famous Sith. The character I use as an example is Severus Snape from the Harry Potter saga: if we analyze Snape's motivations we can see that everything he does over the course of the seven books is driven by only two motivations, which are love for Lily and the desire to take revenge against Voldemort. Every single action of Snape, however cold he may apparently seem, is driven by these two reasons... which as you will notice are purely emotional in nature. At the beginning, and perhaps even at the end, Snape doesn't care much about the fact that Voldemort also kills Muggles or at least that isn't his main reason for fighting him: he wants to avenge Lily in the name of his Love for her. So Snape fits perfectly into the description of a Sith: he doesn't do what he does for a lofty reason of love for "community" and for an abstract ideal of the common good, he just does what he does because he is moved by emotion and passion. In this I notice a very strong parallel with Palpatine: both characters have a mask of cold and rational man, both are mentally disciplined enough to hide their true motivations and manage to hatch even very complex plans and plots BUT both are in reality driven by unbridled emotions and passions, simply in Snape's case we talk about love and revenge while in Palpatine's case we talk about ambition. Here we can notice another important thing: the Sith are "motivated" by emotions\passions but are not necessarily "dominated" by them. Not 24/7 at least: Palpatine has the galaxy believe he is a calm and rational politician, he has the clarity to make a very elaborate plan... all this despite being "moved/motivated" by ambition
E) So, having seen in the previous point that you can very well create a positive character who is driven by the desire to satisfy personal passions and fully experience your personal emotions, I return to my initial question: why no Sith is a positive character ? Now I don't pretend that all the Sith are Severus Snape but I can't even understand why they are all evil: I think that there could easily be some Sith who fight for a positive ideal... maybe they will fight in a violent and questionable way, maybe they will be similar to those who in Dungeons & Dragons are called "chaotic good", maybe someone will have a politically incorrect attitude like Deadpooll, but they should still exist
Possible Answer 1: the dark side just streams through emotions and the evilness is a Sith fault) I thought a possible answer might be not in the very nature of the light side and the dark side but in the training that the Jedi and Sith receive. In fact, we know that the Jedi are not the only users of the light side just as the Sith are not the only users of the dark side, so perhaps the fact that the Sith are always channeled towards negative emotions and negative passions could be due to the type of people who (by tradition) the Sith choose as students and because of the training they receive. However, if this hypothesis were true, then it would mean that it is not so much the dark side that is evil (at least not necessarily) but the Sith training! This would make a life based on emotion and passion dysfunctional. So there could be characters (who use the dark side and who are not Sith) who have an emotional & passionate but positive attitude. However, no such character comes to mind.

Possible Answer 2 : the dark side is evil but not necessarily streamed/link by emotions and desires) We might assume that the dark side is actually evil and corrupting, however you see it. The connection with emotions would derive from the fact that the Sith tradition has found a way of approaching the dark side in emotions and personal desires. However, if this hypothesis were true, then there would also be other ways of approaching the dark side that are not linked to desires and emotions, there could be users of the dark side who are calm, cold and thoughtful and not at all interested in their emotions : a sort of "monks" of the dark side or "jedi of the dark side" or "vulcans of the dark side". But I can't think of any example of a "dark side tradition" or "dark side order" that doesn't reference the Sith way in some way.

Possible answer 3: the dark side is a just a boogymen because the plot need a villain) We could think that it is a structural problem of the dark side: dark side users must follow their personal emotions and desires but they will necessarily necome evil in doing this. The Jedi suggest many times that the dark side necessarily brings moral corruption, even if it is true that said by the Jedi it is a source a little biased. At this point my question becomes: if the dark side is necessarily evil & necessarily corrupts & necessarily based on emotion and passion, then honestly the very idea of ​​the dark side seems poorly structured to me. Because if this hypothesis were true it would make a strange and unfair comparison between emotionality and evil, between passion and self-destruction... This seems to me not only extremely bad narratively but also false. There are numerous historical examples of people who have saved lives, in some cases even many lives, simply by following their hearts, their emotions and their passions. It is obvious that even a Jedi has an emotionality that leads him to empathize with the evil suffered by other people, however even an emotionality focused on his own passions and deep emotions can be positive: I think for example of a Sith who fights evil not both because he thinks of the good of his community but because evil disgusts him or because he has revenge to carry out against a powerful evil organization. If you allow me another nerdy comparison I would say Gatsu from Berserk: especially at the beginning he is moved by very strong passions and powerful, very violent emotions, but we cannot say that he is the villain of the story because, even if with extremely harsh means, his aim is to eradicate a great evil... He doesn't do it to save the world: he does it for his personal revenge but his aim is still to stratify evil. Why was a Sith or a dark side user never conceived like this?
What do you think about my question ? Please be kind in the comments, thank you :)

Last night I realized I got every single SP I chased to turn around and ask me to meet them. This should be proof that ALL of your desires actually want you.
Chasing means you believe they don’t want you. You can initate conversations that’s fine but you need to come from a place of self worth.
We are talking about 5 different SPs here. And most of it was actually unconscious cause I didn’t realize the law but it was working.
Sp 1 (a girl) had me blocked on all platforms. Definitely the most hopeless circumstances I’ve been in. Refused to speak to me when I saw her in person and walked away. Lol it was BAD. But after one year of trying to reconcile I was like she will eventually want to talk to me. Then 2 months later this same person who kept ghosting me in person was waving at me when I saw her from a distance lmao. But this was unconscious. So I didn’t really try to reach out to her for years and then when I did we became extremely close just the way I wanted. Just the way I craved. She asked to meet me. Not to mention I maintained a belief that she was into girls for years despite her denying it and she eventually came out lol.
Sp 2: I chased and begged him to meet me and he kept refusing. I called him and begged for months lol. And then I was like fuck that. He will regret and then not too long after he was texting me again. And then kept asking me to meet him . I kid you not 6 years later this man is still asking me to meet him.
SP 3: : (a boy) I spent hours and hours day dreaming about us making out and having sex. But my god my self concept was on the floor at this point. He rejected me. I got into self love mode and started thinking he is not all that and bro was complimenting me and hinting how he wanted to make out and things. Again this was unconscious and therefore it took years to materialise cause i didn’t maintain assumptions. But we eventually did do EVERYTHING I day dreamt about. This is also the guy that said “I will never ask you out” and then two months into FWB he was hella nervous trying to ask me out and he did. And we dated. The relationship ended cause of my fears and doubts and that got me into conscious manifesting. I initially chased him and tried to manifest him. Stopped moved on. I eventually got back into manifesting him. All I did was convince myself and change my assumptions. Got him to chase me, ask to meet me and text me everyday just like I had craved for after the break up.
Sp 4: I did every manifesting technique in the book to get him to change his mind. All I had to do was change my mind. I started thinking “his loss” and then just weeks later he started saying he was thinking about me at 2 am. “Tables have turned” and asked me to meet him. (I also got rid of his 3p in 2 weeks)
Sp 5: my current SP. I asked him to meet him twice and realized nah he is gonna ask next. Then I kept thinking oh I know you want to walk around York with me in the summer. He literally word for word said he wants to walk around York with me in the summer.
Literally just tell yourself they want you, and they want what you want. Don’t think against it. Don’t question it. Accept it as true. It won’t take that long to show up in the 3D.

I have already made short post that I finished series finale. I stiil feel sad, depressed and that feeling when tv show ended.... unbelievable how "The Shield" is stuck with me. Can't believe this journey is over.
I wanted to say so many things. Firstly, how can I miss this? I was too young when it came out, but I hear about "The Wire" everywhere even now. "The shield" feels like out of the radar all the time. WE MUST DO SOMETHING WITH IT! Please, just watch "The Shield"!
My friend told me to watch it and he stumbled upon this Tv show in one cool review that was left by some user (girl , actually) on my native language site about movies/tvshows.
When I look at some photos and pictures of "The Shield" I have thoughts that it is like CSI or some other typical cop show with nothing more. How wrong was I with such first impression.
What I really like that "The shield" has blu-ray release. So cool tv show is reinnovate for high quality format and has a lot of bonus features on blu-ray.
My friend also told me that I need to watch especially until Season 5 where it will be so high level quality writing that I gonna really appreaciate "The Shield".
As for myself, I fond of cinema. I just not go easy on any movies/tvshows. I am very nit-picking because I like to learn about cinematography, screenwriting, directing and so on. For me movies like the greatest art and I study movies as an art. That's why I feel bored about modern movies and TV shows. Screenplays are not bold, not so complex, characters feel flat and creators afraid to insult other races, woman right and so on. Many movies and TV shows of modern era feel convinient. I am tired of that. And I started to watch "The Shield" six months ago.
"The Shield" was aired in the right time! Year 2002 like "The Wire". From the pilot episode "The Shield" don't try to be convinient, it shows you what Vic and his team doing, what "The barn" doing everyday. Everything around characters feels not-convinient: drug-addicted, child trafficking, other awful staff around. Characters not just saint and clean, they do what they have to do like it or not as a viewer. That's what I wished for a long time. "The Shield" just clicked with me. I can't even imagine TVshow about cops can be on such level with great cast, great characters, really good screenwriting, directing and editing.
Before "The Shield" I can't tolerate semi-documentary cinematography and "hand-held" effect of camera in movies. In "The Shield" I fall in love with such camerawork and editing. That's really what I can't imagine I would love in cinemas. In this Tv show every take is so close, editiing beetwen close-mid plan camera panning and it feels so great in terms of "The Shield" storytellling. You are always near characters, you like breathing just around their shoulders and see every bad side of Farmington so close that you feel how disgusting this district is. Incredible work from cinematographers and editors.
Dynamic feeling of everything that happens on the screen. The greatest part of "The Shield" it is never trying to dragging some melodrama to extend seasons or try to be sentimental in the scenes. Modern TVshows really like that and i don't. Don't need to play with the viewer. In "The Shield" everything happenes so fast, so realistic that sometimes you can't even catch a breath. Not a single dull episode. In every episode something cool will definetely happens and it keeps you attached to the screen. And I don't mean that "The Shield" hasn't some melancholic or not-fast pacing moment. On the opposite, "The Shield" has everything what makes cinema alive and fascinating.
Let me explain what I really like about "The Shield" and I have never experience such different emotions just in one piece of the cinema:
In "The Shield" you can feel like a kid again and rooting for cool-masculine guys who breaks door and shout: "Police! On the ground!". After some episodes I really wanna just play in cops and criminals on my yard with friends. That's how action feels in this Tv show. I wanna buy merch with "Strike Team" on it and snake eating rat logo. Incredible.
In "The Shield" as an adult you can feel totally devastated by events that just happened on the screen. You can feel pure emotions from character actions. And what most important you don't want to judge character right away you want to put yourself in his shoes because what character did feels so realistic. Characters here not some fancy cards, you can feel them like real human beings.
In "The Shield" you can laugh as an adult. Humor in some scenes and from some characters really spot on and not stupid. It is full drama but some episodes has great humor parts. And again it feels so real and natural like human beings in real life would joke about something. Bilings sutuations and lines from later seasons are just pure gold.
In "The Shield" you want to discuss some parts of the story. It feels like after reading a good complex books with interesting characters you start to think about their actions and how you can think about your actions in the real life. What it is like to be a coward? To be hypocrite? What about loayalty and friendship? Trust me not so many movies/TVshows can be so full-thinking. It's a miracle that such depth can be in cop TV show. I stiil can't imagine how believable characters are and situations in "The Shield". Script and story of all seasons and how characters arcs redeemed is golden!
So I trying to say "The Shield" can feel like popcorn-blockbuster cop show in some parts with overacting but sometimes it's pure complex drama with silence scenes and great acting and very realistic characters. It's the best mixture of movie formula that I have seen in my life! I stiil can't imagine that I saying such words in terms of cop TV show.
"The Shield" was ahead of its time. It is a real piece of art. In modern days I want to see Tv show with overacting (when it need to be done), cool action and the same time it can provide me with great drama sequences and believable characters.
[SPOILER] section below. Please read only if you watched the series.
What I also like about "The Shield" it has great leading character. Michael Chiklis was born for this role. Maybe in first seasons you can think he overacting sometimes and can't be so dramatic but in the late seasons Michael have shown one of the best acting scenes in cinema. Pure mastery. This 42 second silence in front of Olivia was something unique and incredible. Then final eyes scene with Cloudette and finale running eyes scene in the ending of season 7 when he sits alone.
Vic is so well written in every season. He is the anchor of the show. So charismatic, strategy wise, musculine and cool and what I like the most this character feels real. When Vic came alone in gang territory and didn't fear anything you believe in that. You understand as a viewer that not anybody in "the barn" have balls for things that Mackey can do. He uses "shortcuts" in police work that only he can manage. He has really metal backbone. Even when he mentally broke at the end of the 1st season he needs just a couple of minutes to grab his shit together and go further. Character has a great amount of willpower and dedication to do anything that he wanted to.
Vic is the greatest anti hero in cinema history. Many side characters hate him but when there is a problem that no one can resolve Mackey step up. Farmington is so dirty that it needs people dirty as Vic to clean it.
I actually always rooted for Vic as a viewer because nobody in "The Shield" is black and white. Even Claudette free Kleavon from death penalty to keep her warm place. And I like that "The Shield" shows every character is corrupt somehow.
But I can't believe that Vic betrayed Ronnie. It hits hard. After that I as a viewer understood Cloudette words: "Vic is trying to be someone he wants you to see him". We viewers see Vic true nature in the final episode and it hits hard too. He always was like that and we didn't want to accept. And some part of me like him but other part can't forgive him for what he did to others. Such a great character downfall through all seasons. And this shot when he smiled to his gun and go somewhere. Where did he go? He can't sit tight he always need to be "living on the edge" this his type of character.
I wanna write about other characters. Shane for sure. But Post is too big. I leave it for later.
10/10. I am empty and depressed that "The Shield" journey ended for me. Can't believe that many people don't know about this masterpiece. I am glad I stumbled upon it. It touched my strings for cinema love that not any movie or tv show touching in years.
So many emotions and thoughts. Thanks to Shawn Ryan, Michael Chiklis, Walton Goggins and every other member of "The Shield" crew and FX. I wish I had a chance to tell it to them personally. I am grown man but I feel emotions like a kid again. Pure emotions from "The Shield" story.
To sum up my words. I like this ending montage of Season 2. It has great editing and you feel emotions. I literally cried when I rewatched it after the final. Vic the only one who is laughing but others feel mix emotions. Gives shivers to my spine.
The Shield - Overcome Season 2 Ending (youtube.com)

TW for mention of critical illness, hospitals, parental strife
This story spans over a few years so I'm sure I'll have to edit this to clarify.
When I was 17 years old I got diagnosed with a thing in my brain* through an MRI.
^\The shorthand is "AVM" for arteriovenous malformation, a tangle of blood vessels that irregularly connects arteries and veins. In the brain, it can cause brain bleeds which affect cognitive and motor function and can also result in death. The way i explain it is that you've got the blood pressure and flood of an artery going into a deformed clump of capillaires and veins with thin walls, deforming them further. The risk of rupture increases every year. Idk if it sounds scary enough like that, but it's like a ticking time bomb.)
I got gamma radiation shortly after, which is only relevant because they use a metal frame with metal spikes they drill against your skull so you can’t move your head during radiation. I chose this method of treatment because it was supposed to be quick and painless with no general anaesthesia but it turned out that the treatment experience was completely traumatising and I’m still living with a clinical PTSD diagnosis following that.
This mode of treatment aims at calcifying the inside of the veins in a specific zone and the gradual closing of vulnerable veins can take from 6 m to 3y.
I have siblings and we’ve all always been afraid of our dad. He was always extremely authoritative and we were very well behaved because of that. He got angry very easily, and the smallest thing would send him storming off screaming and breaking things, preceded by silent treatment (which was somehow the scariest all). He’d punish us extremely strictly, and would often drive up to 40km/h over the speed limit to scare or punish us, the reasoning was something like « if we all die it’s your fault because we made me angry).
All this to say my relationship with my father has always been extremely vertical and our relationship never grew into something like equal footing and I always got extremely nervous and scared whenever I was about to meet with him.
This being said, there is no amount of words I can use to describe the depth of my love for him. He drove us around without a protest for hours and hours and hours, gave us a beautiful luxurious life and never missed any of our important dates. Birthdays and chistmases were an avalanches of gifts and we were completely spoiled. He was extremely involved and I know he loves me so much. I’ve stopped speaking to him a few years ago but it truly breaks my heart because I love him so much and I miss the smell of his aftershave and I know he misses me very much too.
When the MRI result came back, my dad was there. He was the one who walked up to me and said « everything is fine, there is just a *little* thing.
I’m sure this was hard for him because his mom died of cancer when he was 28, but he never mentioned it in relation to my illness.
Pretty quickly, my dad stopped me whenever I mentioned illness and made sure I amended any mention of the experience by adding a sweetened positive twist at the end like « I’m glad I learned so much » or « but I grew so much from the experience ».
Gradually and too seamlessly for me to really notice, he decided I was « cured » and would no longer tolerate any mention of illness. He’s get impatient, tell me off, and even genuinely angry when I did. He’d say « you’re cured now » and « idk why you keep talking about this, it’s in the past now, you need to move on and live life ». Important note here : he is not a doctor, just a regular dad in the world with zero medical knowledge.
I don’t know if it was his own version of « manifesting » healing for me or a symptom of his fear. I wonder if he misunderstood the neurologist saying it could take up to three years to see if the treatment was effective. Before the 3 year mark, with no tests and MRIS to back it, he’s managed to completely convince himself and the rest of the family that I was cured and only still talking about it for attention. He even invented a pseudo-psychological term he dubbed the « syndrome of the sick child » to belittle my fear and worry and terror and loneliness, which if I understand his concept correctly meant I was clinging to an expired diagnosis in order to be babied and gat my parents attention. IDK maybe this can give you insight into his personality, how convincing he could be.
And it was just a really lonely experience for me. All of the « why are you still talking about this you ‘re cured and you need to move on now », while still trying to cope with so much fear of dying at all times, without having anywhere to talk about it. I wonder if the lack of parental support I experienced thought such a traumatising experience as a teenager and then as a young adult was what contributed to transform the trauma into clinical PTSD (diagnosed).
Eventually, I got my 3-year mark MRI. The radiologist was my dad’s BIL and he called my dad and gave him the result directly instead of contacting me directly. I was a legal adult and ab. 22 by then. My dad then called me on the phone, I remember the conversation so clearly, he said I was cured and I proceeded to call my mom and grandparents and best friend to share the news.
yay now you can move on. When he got home he popped a bottle of champagne open in celebration.
This was so tough because something didn’t quite sit right with me. Because of growing up hypervigilent I’m usually good at telling when someone is lying and twisitng the truth.
He seemed off on the phone, and in person, and I couldn’t tell if it wasn’t just that I couldn’t imagine life ebbing cured.
A few days later the BIL called me and said there was a lil persisting on the MRI. I wonder if I’d been brainwashed by my dad already by the time BIL called because when I asked dad if there was anything he didn’t tell me, he said « well you can’t expect to be 100% cured with things like this », and « 99% cured is the same as 100% » and other things of the sort. It was like he’d twisted the results in favour of his opinion.
By that time, I was stuck and really confused, and everyone was already convinced I was cured. And it got really hard for me to know what to do and where to turn because I was till so young and the hospital system was so confusing.
It took two years for me to decide to get a second opinion. Someone else looked at the MRI and said there was still something left, but since I’d heard my dad assure me it meant I was cured, it took considerable effort for me to reach out to my service in the hospital again for an appointment with the specialist I’d seen back when I was 17. This alone was extremely challenging because no one took be seriously, and I had to call the secretary office on a daily basis for a couple weeks to ask what I should do to get a confirmation I was cured. I’m quite headstrong and I wanted to hear from the specialist directly that I was cured do as to have no doubts at all. Throughout this, dad tried to discourage me and then eventually accepted it might be the only way for me to move on.
The MRI happened and I sat in the neurosurgeons office at the hospital of my nightmares asking if my results were conducive with full recovery. He confirmed there was something left, and then that the aim of treatment is to be completely cured. That the malformation should not be visible on an MRI once it was cured. He added that the risk of rupture increased each year. I soon had another more intrusive san done and it confirmed there was a little left, which meant I needed to get another round of Gamma radiation.
This hit me like a ton of bricks.
The second round of treatment was just as traumatising as I’d remembered the first round to be.
I don’t know what to do with how angry I am with my dad. He lied to me and invited all of us to live in a fiction of his making, thus endangering me. Every insistence I’d been cured and needed to move on when I wasn’t, and in fact the risk of me having an aneyrism was growing with every day.
The worst is that he never apologised. He instantly switched up his story and started pretending he’d never said I was cured. He created a whole new fiction where « he’d always insisted I’d get a more thorough MRI checkup ». It’s so unfair. How he can’t embrace a world where he’s wronged me, and not because it destroyed me but because he can’t be wrong. He has to be perfect. How unfair.
I most likely wouldn’t have mede it past the age of fifty if I’d believed of indeed obeyed him.
I used to check my memories again to make sure I hadn’t made it up, and eventually I accepted I’d never get an apology. And that I was wronged and I didn’t deserve that. And that I should’ve gotten the support I needed.
I’m cured now, I sat in another doctors office a year ago and he said my MRI came back normal and the AVM was no longer on the scan. I’m really proud I was so headstrong.
And eventually I decided to take distance from my dad, and life improved when I stopped talking to him. I know it hurts him, and that he’s extremely angry. He expresses this to my siblings, and I know they get punished in my stead and I feel so guilty. But I can’t be around my dad, I’m too angry. I’m trying to live with the love I have for him in my heart, with my childhood memories and the guilt and missing him and then more guilt for being happier now that I don’t have to talk to him and listen to his tirades. And I worry for my siblings who still talk to him, because he doesn’t treat them kindly and they deserve so much love and admiration and support, which he’d never give them.
I used to want to press charges and I wonder if he shouldn’t be in prison for what he did but he’s a vicious man and he’s go to much money and friends in high places that I couldn’t take him on. And things would get ugly, I know. I just wish he could pay for what he did.
I’ll update later for typos and clarifications :)

“We’re a meat family,” my dad would proudly tell strangers. He’d wait for the quizzical look, then launch into detail, starting with how many freezers we had, how long we could sustain ourselves on the contents. It was just his way of starting a conversation, which made sense when you considered that raising and home-killing animals for food was, for want of a better term, his life-long hobby. His prize possession was one of those industrial-sized vacuum sealers: you could put half a pig inside and wrap it in plastic so tightly that every wrinkle and skin fold waxed unreal with shiny detail.
If we hadn’t lived in a rural area, albeit semi-urbanised, I guess it would have been pretty weird. But the mostly farming-stock locals only found his extra enthusiasm a little bit odd.
When he wasn’t being a bit embarrassing talking about it, I never really paid much heed to his hobby. I had a child’s vaguely grateful awareness that though our family went through some lean financial times, our stomachs never suffered like some of the families around us. All the beef, pork, ham and bacon in those big old chest freezers passed down from his dad really could have fed us for years.
I should preface all this by saying that I wasn’t a particularly bright kid, though neither was I dumb. I didn’t fail badly at anything in school, I just never achieved beyond a pass. I didn’t know it yet back then, still quietly dreaming about being a ballet star or a dressage champion, but mediocrity was my destiny. And I think that’s why I got on so well with my Aunt Liz.
Liz was my dad’s live-in youngest sister. She was one of those women who get described as ‘bubbly’ — not really pretty, not really smart, not a lot going on besides just being… well, all Liz. But she was salt of the earth; kind, caring, and great with kids. She was the only person who would willingly mind my two older brothers, who fought like hellcats and caused more trouble than the whole last generation of my family combined. People would privately lament to my parents that it was a shame Liz didn’t have kids of her own, but dad would just shake his head and say Liz liked it that way – that all the fun of looking after kids is being able to give them back to their parents.
I guess she was like me; nice, but mediocre. Lovely, but somehow forgettable when she wasn’t doing something for you.
But when Liz left us, I couldn’t forget her.
In hindsight, it was pretty weird timing that we had a big fortieth birthday party for Liz right before she disappeared. She was radiant that night; she’d hired a local girl to do her hair and makeup, and it was honestly the first time I’d ever seen her look pretty. She’d even worn a push-up bra under a tight red dress, which flattered her very plump curves well enough that the neighbour’s farmhand was spotted disappearing into the woolshed with her for a snog. In my dawning awareness, that gave a plain girl hope: if Aunty Liz could get a guy at forty, maybe things would turn out okay for me.
Anyway, I couldn’t forget how her pink cheeks, her eyes, her whole self, glowed that night before Liz went to bed. She said it was the best birthday ever, and that she was very much looking forward to the next stage of her life.
Would I have done anything different, if I had known? If I had realised what, exactly, that next stage was?
The week after the party, Aunt Liz said she was going on a little holiday up north, to visit some old school friends. She packed her things – she didn’t honestly have that many – and drove her little orange mini out onto the main road. And with a wave of one fleshy hand, she was gone. Nobody really thought much of it when she didn’t call, because nobody rural had cellphones back then. And Liz was, as I said, somehow kinda forgettable when she wasn’t right in front of you.
When we hadn’t had contact for six weeks, Dad tracked down the land line numbers for their old school buddies. They were surprised to hear from him — Liz had never arrived, so they had just assumed she’d cancelled her visit. No-one had thought to check. I eavesdropped on the conversation, and it sounded for all the world like *they* had forgotten about Aunt Liz, too.
From there it became a missing person case. The local cops came and talked to all of us; the farmhand who’d been seen snogging her was briefly detained, then let go, dad got grilled at length, even my hellion brothers were questioned thoroughly to see if this was one of their wild and dangerous pranks gone wrong.
But everything was a dead end. Nobody knew where Liz was, or what had happened to her.
The remains of her old mini were found halfway across the country, burned out on a beach, on a derelict stretch of ragged, rocky coastline. The police assumed murder and combed the area for remains. But even the most expert divers couldn’t conquer the incredible undertow and fast-shifting seabed of that coastline to look for evidence, so none was forthcoming.
Eventually the cops collectively shrugged and said that there was really nothing more they could do unless more information suddenly came to light. The locals knew nothing, no witnesses had come forward, and the trail was cold. As far as anyone knew, poor aunt Liz had been murdered on some desolate beach, far away from her home.
It didn’t feel fair to me. She’d once mentioned wanting her remains buried on our farm, in the graveyard plot beside grandma and grandad.
So, in my grief, I went into her room to look for something of hers to bury beside them.
Like I said, Liz didn’t have many things. Her room was pretty spartan, and her wardrobe was mostly sensible farm stuff. There was one exception: she, like me, did like to read, and she had a pretty good collection of well-thumbed books. I think it’s the escapism – even the most mediocre girl can lose herself in the plot of some trashy romance novel, imagine there’s still hope of being swept off her feet by that handsome stableboy, his inexplicable yearning for chubby plain girls.
So I set myself the task of going through the books, to find the right one to bury in the graveyard plot.
Most of them were exactly what you’d expect, but some of them were racier than I was used to. I felt various parts of my body flushing and tingling, as I read breathless prose about calloused hands touching the softest flesh of the protagonist. Okay, if I’m honest with myself, I might have got a little *too* invested in my project at that point. But that was also why I persisted going through her entire collection, until I found the ragged paperback from 1970, entitled Tawny Sands. And inside that trashy cardboard romance cover, I discovered not the tale of Tawny Sands, but some carefully hand-cut, stitched-in pages. A handwritten story in my Aunt’s rounded penmanship: Memoirs of a Long Pig.
I read her story twice in a row, utterly gripped.
Aunt Liz was no Stephen King – heck, she wasn’t even the Goosebumps guy – but her story was gripping and compelling, and I couldn’t put it down. Even if I hadn’t known her, I think that would have been true.
The gist of it was that Liz, when she was sixteen, had discovered that our family had a very long history of eating what she described as ‘Long Pork’. It’s an antipodean term, anglicised from the Pacific Islands: human meat.
Like me, young Liz still had some hopes and dreams. In one of her many failed attempts to find a special talent, she’d taken up cooking as a hobby. Naturally, with our family’s overabundance of meat, she’d scoured the freezers in the shed for ingredients: the racks of ribs and stacks of pork chops, butcher-paper wrappings all neatly labelled with the first letter of the name of the animal they came from.
She found familiar meat from Rodney, one of the pigs that had been recently slaughtered, emblazoned with an ‘R’ in her father’s strong, blocky lettering. There were cutlets labelled ‘M’ for Mary, from one of the lambs she’d hand-reared, and ‘F’ for Ferdinand, the steer they’d killed the month before. But she couldn’t explain the many, many curious parcels of meat on one side of the huge freezer, all labelled ‘J’ – at least, not until she took it all out and assembled it as well as she could on the scoured concrete floor of the killing shed. A big, frozen jigsaw puzzle without the box, her best attempt to discover what kind of beast the pieces had come from.
The animal, she quickly realised, was a Long Pig. Her own Aunt Jenny, who had died the month before – just after her fortieth birthday.
Fortunately, or perhaps not, for Liz, her father entered the shed right at that moment and realised his daughter had discovered the family secret. He sat down calmly on the lid of the freezer, and explained to her that this was a long-running family tradition, dating back to at least before his grandfather had been born.
“There are always people in life, Liz,” he’d said, “who won’t really amount to much. They want to be useful, want to be more. They strive and they strive, trying job after job, hobby after hobby, trying to hit on something they’re really good at. Something that makes them special. Those people can waste their whole lives, chasing dreams that never come true. Eventually they die unfulfilled, knowing that all their time has been wasted. That what they leave behind will fade quickly.”
His voice was oddly gentle as he leaned down and patted one of the neatly wrapped cuts of Aunt Jenny, still sitting frozen on the shed floor.
“Your Aunt Jenny was one of those people. So was my Aunt Irene.” He paused to gaze at his daughter, his next words peppered with emphasis. “But you see, my sweet Liz, they did find a purpose in life. They did find a way to be special, and they left this world utterly certain of their gift.” He stood up, stretched his back. “Let me show you.”
Liz waited while my grandad meticulously stacked the meat back into the freezer, all but one J-marked parcel that looked for all the world like a thick venison steak. He took her back to the farmhouse, and reverently unwrapped the deep red, heavily marbled meat to let it thaw. Then he laid it in the family’s ancient, cast-iron pan, basting it with butter and rosemary until a heavenly scent filled the kitchen, and Aunt Liz couldn’t stop her mouth from watering.
“Just try it. Let her show you. You’ll see exactly what I’m talking about.”
Even though she knew it was her aunt, Liz couldn’t stop herself from taking that first bite. There was something transcendent about the smell, overriding her natural revulsion that this was human meat, not one of their farm animals. For the first time, she truly realised it: we’re just another kind of animal. And weren’t her memories of Mary the lamb almost as fond as her memories of Aunt Jenny?
Liz explained then, in her curly handwriting, the explosion of taste that had assaulted her when she tried the steak. It was tender, it was succulent, it was rich beyond imagining. The fats melted on her tongue, lingering somewhere between pork and beef, but oddly neither. The flavour of the meat defied identification; something familiar, yet not.
But one thing she couldn’t deny; it was the most delicious thing she had ever eaten. Tears dripped onto her plate, mingled with the juice, the grease — not grief, but a pure, real, giddy delight.
“You’re tasting your aunt’s love for this family,” my grandad explained. “Her entire life was carefully curated, to eventually make unforgettable moments for us, just like this. This was her way of being special. This was the greatest gift she could possibly bring to our world – and because she realised that, she died with not a single regret. She knew her life had purpose. She was perfectly, completely fulfilled.”
I felt those words. I felt them lodge in my own belly, settling uncomfortably deep. I knew Aunt Liz, probably better than anyone else in the family. I’d seen how fucking happy she’d been on her fortieth, how goddamn fulfilled she was, despite apparently being a *nobody* and achieving *nothing*. Somehow, in the space of a single day, she had gone from being a forgettable background character to becoming the *main character*, immortalising herself in our family’s history with her sacrifice. Quite literally becoming part of all of us, forever.
I went to the killing shed after I finished with the book. I looked inside the freezers.
But there were no vacuum-sealed packages labelled ‘L’, no matter how deep I dug into the frozen stacks of plastic-wrapped flesh. Panicked now, not sure if I wanted to connect all the dots or unconnect them, I tried to think back over the last few months, recall any meals that had been unusually good. A few Sundays ago, we’d had a stew that really hit the spot and left me craving more. And I realised that the family had a really good night that night; my brothers behaved themselves, my parents didn’t fight, and grandma and grandad had been there. Hadn’t they looked far more… expectant than they should have?
I strained my brain, trying to recall if I’d seen the homekill bag on the kitchen bench – if I’d registered what letter it was. I knew it wasn’t an L. I would have remembered if it was an L.
And then it hit me, the memory, the connection, sizzling as if branded with a hot iron.
It had been an ‘E’.
E for Elizabeth. Not for Edward the pig.
I snorted at my own stupidity – of *course* Liz was short for Elizabeth – and as I comprehended my lack of smarts, I felt something give inside me.
I wasn’t clever, and nothing, nothing would ever make me smart. I had no big talents. I wasn’t beautiful, or even cute – and even if I had a million plastic surgeries, it still wouldn’t fulfill me. It wouldn’t be real.
I was a Liz.
I was a Jenny.
I was whoever the first aunt had been, the aunt who had dedicated her life to making her flesh as delicious as possible, who had worked every damn minute to be the best Long Pig she could ever be.
I wondered how many magical family evenings had been spent eating Aunt Jenny. How many glorious, satisfying, memorable dishes had been made out of her.
And… I wanted that. I wanted to finally know I had a *purpose* in life. One so simple, and so easy to achieve.
I wanted what Aunt Liz had.
***
It's my fortieth birthday today and I’m so fucking excited. For the last twenty-four years, I’ve dedicated myself to this moment; I’ve eaten exactly what I needed to, I’ve exercised just enough, but not too much, to maintain that perfect balance of marbling vs tenderness. I’ve relaxed and meditated to keep all those amazing flavours inside of me. I’ve researched all the greatest meats in the world, from prime Angus beef to A5 Wagyu. I really think I may have outdone myself.
I’m having my hair and makeup done at the local salon this afternoon, and I’m going to look so pretty; all prize piggy on show at the fair. I’m even going to have a big red ribbon in my hair, in memory of Aunt Liz.
Maybe there’ll be a cute boy I can snog in the wool shed, maybe there won’t – I don’t really care; because the most important, most certain thing is that I’m going to be the most delicious Long Pig in the history of our entire family.
I’m going to make everyone so damn happy, and I’m just so glad I can share my story with you all, instead of hiding it in a grubby book like poor Aunt Liz.
My only real disappointment? That you won’t get to taste me.
Reader, I have loved, loved my life. My Long Pork will be out of this world: once tasted, never, ever forgotten.

I’ll try to make this as short as possible. So two days ago i came back from meeting a friend who i hadn’t seen in a year since i moved abroad to live with my partner. My boyfriend is a big gamer and spends most of his time in the bedroom since that is where his pc is, sometimes i chill on the bed if i wanna spend some time with him and that’s what i did when i came home from seeing my friend. I wanted to share something (i honestly dont remember what) but he was gaming and wanted to watch something in the game, so after what felt like 15 minutes he finally asked what i wanted to say but i had forgotten about it. I then watched some tiktoks on my phone and talked about something else. While i was talking he rolled onto my back twice (i was laying on my stomach), he is a lot taller than me and obviously heavier so its hard for me to breath and talk while he lays on top of me. I told him that it makes me feel like he’s not listening to me and doesnt t take me serious. He in return said “i was just being moody”, which made me mad because i was so happy after seeing my friend. In his defence, he did hear everything i said but i still feel like its rude to roll on people when they’re talking. I’ve had a lot of trouble expressing my feelings to him and explaining why sometimes i get sad in the past, so now i just said straight up what was making me feel upset. He went to the gym immediately after and i could hear by his tone that he got upset too.
I tried talking to him later that night before we went to bed. He pretty much just told me that i’m making things up, which surprised me because what i felt is real to me and he’s never really dismissed my feelings like that. I feel like he’s gaslighting me into believing that im making things up and me being moody when i was not. Because he dismissed my feeling like that i feel very discouraged from talking to him again about how i’m feeling. He in return feels like its not my place to tell him how he should behave when he’s talking to me. Am i rightfully upset or am i making things up like he’s suggesting?
TLDR; i told my boyfriend that he’s not taking me serious when i’m talking to him, and now he’s saying i’m making things up and being moody.

Ok for starters this is a throw away account since I know they have reddit and I DO NOT want them to see this. Also we are friends online! Don't judge I have a ton of friends in LDR 😭 Anyways. I have no idea what to think and I feel like I can't ask my friends since we are all in a big friend group and I'm afraid they will tell him. Recently, I will call him G, and I have been getting close. I will also start by saying we have been friends since December. There was some drama that happened and he blocked the whole friend group. He ended up only messaging me about coming back and everything and now we are all friends again. Since then we have been getting closer. We were still some what distant but since my boyfriend and I started having issues he's become less distant (I should also note that my boyfriend and I have basically separated after an argument). We started talking a lot more and he even opened up to me about some personal stuff. A few weeks ago I showed him a friend of mine and he decided he liked her. I tried to set them up, but it sort of fell through. I hate to admit it but I'm happy it fell through. This led to us talking even more. We are very similar in music taste, thoughts, and movies. This is where I am now wondering if he likes me or if I'm tripping. He sends me music and songs he likes all the time. He also talks about movies and we even have a list we should watch (admittedly a lot with our friends but there are a few he thinks would be better suited for just us). We also just bought concert tickets together and plan to meet up after I said I wanted to go but had no one to go with. Anytime I talk about how I want to do things he always says how he would do them with me. How he would love to go do this or that with me. But when others mention it, he sort of shys away from the idea. We also stay up late, even after our whole friend group is gone. We play games together even though I'm bad. He sends me funny messages all the time now too. To the point where if he's laughing I know I'll receive the video. He also has apologized to me before about how he wants to not be as rude to me (we make jokes for sure towards each other) and how he feels it isn't right of him to do so. He also likes my Instagram notes and comments a lot on them. I know those reasons may not make it seem likely that he likes me but there are 3 specific instances that I think of. The first is when I was complaining about how I would be bored by myself at this thing I was doing. He said he wouldn't be busy at that time and I joked we would probably just talk in our group chat. He sort of laughed then started to stutter saying, "Well you know...You know...haha" And then said, "Well if you wanted..." and stopped himself. I don't know what he was going to ask. But we spent 2 hours during said boring event talking and he showed me his guitar and how to restring it. The second is the other day we were talking about movies. There is this movie he LOVES so much. We have regular movie nights with the gang and the other day it fell through. I said I was sad and wanted to watch the movie. He started to say "well you know...if you wanted" again. After some time of talking he nervous laughed and asked if I wanted to watch another movie with him just him and I. I agreed. We got off track as we usually do and ended up on the conversation of his favorite movie again. He then asked "We could watch [name of favorite movie] instead...together if you wanted to..". That brings me to my third scenario of the fact we watched the movie together by ourselves. I should also say he almost never stutters over anything and has no issues asking me to do xyz in games we play or to watch this video ect. Those 2 stuttering moments have thrown me off completely. 

ON TOP OF ALL OF THAT, we had movie night today and he turned his camera on and my god He has the most beautiful smile I've ever seen. His laugh is contagious as well. I almost want to be around him The most of all of our friends because he is so kind and has the best laugh. But his smile oh my god and his eyes. That's the first thing I noticed about him. I think I may have developed a crush on him. But do you all think he may have as well?

Hi friends! I don’t know what this is or what I “have” I honestly just want to feel know if there’s other people that experience this.
Sometimes I (20 f) feel genuinely out of control of myself, like I’ll say or do things that I feel like before I can stop myself I’ve already done them.
For example, I saw an old highschool friend when I was out with my boyfriend, they said hi to me and I said hi back. The next thing that came out of my mouth was “can I have a hug?” I DID NOT WANT A HUG, I don’t even know why I said it!!
Or My uncle the other day offered me a alcoholic beverage at a family event (I am of drinking age) and I gave him a look like I was uncomfortable as he was listing what drinks they had at the house. His response to this was “don’t get me wrong I feel weird offering it to you” because he thought I felt uncomfortable WHICH I DID NOT.
Idk maybe this is silly but I do stuff like this all the time and I just don’t know why.
I’ve talked about it with my boyfriend being like “hey you know when you just say things you don’t mean?” And he’s like “nope.”, which obviously makes me feel like I’m going crazy but yeah.
I don’t have generalized anxiety, thought I should say as idk if that might be apart of it.
If you have also experienced this please let me know, I feel so alone :/

This is more for me to work out my own feelings than needing advice although advice would be helpful. I am still debating on if I want to talk this out or let it go. So yeah, as the title says, only one person from my friend group showed up to my (28F) Birthday Dinner. I am primarily coming to Reddit because it is embarrassing and shattering my vision of myself. I fear seeking comfort from my out-of-state friends because I do not want them to think less of me. I have always been deeply aware of how lonely I feel/am. It is one of my biggest vulnerabilities, so should other people be aware of it? or imply it with none of my friends who came to my birthday dinner? I can open up about anything else, but this feels too exposing.
But yeah, my friends did not show up for my birthday dinner, and I am not sure how I feel about it. One person did, but he(M29+) is my boyfriend's(32M) friend more than mine. To be honest, this makes it even more embarrassing. Having to search The Feelings Chart, I primarily just feel abandoned, embarrassed, fragile, disrespected, etc. Watching the door and waiting for your friends to show up while conversing with your partner and their friend is difficult. Suddenly, I was 17 again, only having one singular friend going to lunch with me before having other friends and dropping me off at an empty house. I think my parents were at a sibling's game or tournament. or a party? I am not sure; I just remember being home alone for my birthday a month after a suicide attempt. Or I was back at 11, having my birthday overshadowed by my sister's first communion. Or I was back on my 20th birthday, taking myself to see Captain America: Civil War.
Most of them did not even tell me they were not coming. That is what really hurts. I know my birthday sucks for everyone, time-wise. My parents made that very apparent by pushing any family celebration to Father's Day/my dad's & uncle's birthday. Yet only one of the four got back to me two hours beforehand about being unable to make it because they were tired from preparing for their family member's wedding a week from now. However, the thing is, I had gauged the group chat about doing it this weekend a week ago. To be fair, there were acknowledgments of seeing it, but no one directly responded with a conflict. I even sent a message 24 hours before letting everyone know I made a reservation, and people, again, liked the message but did not directly say if there was an issue. That is what is primarily keeping me from having a conversation with anyone. There was obvious acknowledgment of the plans, but no one asked if they could go.
It is apparent I have a lot of baggage around my birthday. I worry I unconsciously make it a test for people and myself. I saw how much people love and value me and based my self-worth and relationships on that. Possibly hope they do not show in a sick way of confirming my deepest insecurity. The rationale part of me acknowledges that it is a lot to put on someone, and things, unfortunately, just do not work out sometimes. On the other hand, this is the third event I have planned as the host where people were busy and canceled at the last minute. Usually, I would just take that as a sign of people not wanting to be friends, but some of them were legitimately interested in it when I briefly discussed it in April. Furthermore, they keep inviting me to their events.
Fundamentally, I do not know where to go from here. Only one of them has reached out, apologizing for not communicating more and saying that they will celebrate at a better time, while the other two have been silent. I think I need more time to process it before having an actual conversation with anyone about it. I am still primarily in the hurt phase, and no communication will be about their actual behavior. For example, with the apology, I was dishonest and said no worries. I wish I did not do that; it caught me off guard, but I did not want it to sit for too long and have them think I was ignoring them out of malice. If I had been in a better headspace, I would have responded with a thank you, acknowledged reading their message, and just be honest about needing more time before talking about it. I just feel sad.
Added context: We are all in graduate school. This is their last quarter before graduating, so they are legitimately busy and finishing up their practice experience/integrative projects and applying to fellowships. Ages range from 25-30.

Okay, here we go. Big rant incoming. This post is going to be extremely long and a bit whiny, but I would only write something like this because I really do love this game, and I am passionate about the decisions that go into game design & player experience. Feel free to skip to the TLDR. Obviously: SPOILERS
I'll start this off by saying that I have like 1000 hours in Valheim and I absolutely love the core aspects of the game. I also like to think of myself as a pretty skilled player compared to the average/target audience. I've done many Valheim playthroughs over the past few years, including a hardcore playthrough through Yagluth with no deaths, and a no-map/compass only playthrough. Even so, while the Ashlands as a biome felt "off" from even before the release, I generally blamed this on "skill issue", and figured progression would ameliorate some of the issues. After doing basically everything there is to do in the biome, I've come to the conclusion that it does not get better: the Ashlands gameplay loop is fundamentally anti-player experience. Here' why:
Mob density and lava is anti-exploration: Valheim, at its core, is an adventure & exploration game. If you take out the exploration, you're left with a resource collection simulator with awkward movement and basic combat. Like the Mistlands before it, the Ashlands presents immediate barriers to exploration. To even set foot into the biome you need top tier gear from the previous biome and an industrial grade multi-biome farm producing all of the best foods and meads.
However, while the Mistlands progression allows you to eventually overcome its barriers to exploration with the introduction of magic and new mechanical items (like the feather cape), the Ashlands never gets any less hostile. There are no lava-immunity boots, no anti-spawning beacons, no nothing. You just get a pretty okay gear upgrade, and a big fuck you. In fact, because of the unrelenting charred hordes, Valkyries, and marathon-running Asksvins, you're actually punished for exploring too far from your steadfast.
The only reasonable way to map the biome is by sprinting in Fenris armor with an Asksvin cape and Moder, which fundamentally destroys the immersion of the exploration anyways. After all this time in the biome, I've explored less than a half of a single of the Ashlands continents in my world. And why should I? What do I even gain from it? This leads me into my next big problem:
The Ashlands is unrewarding: To invest such tremendous effort into a biome there needs to be an equally tremendous reward. Spoiler: there isn't! You can expect to die a LOT in the biome, meaning your hard-earned skills are going to wither away, making you substantially weaker overall. What are you offered in return for this? Not much! The new heavy armor is the standard upgrade, extremely expensive, and generally slow. The Asksvin hide and magic armor sets are definitely not worse than the previous armor sets, but they don't really feel that much better. A couple of the weapons were interesting... but again, not enough to offset the pain.
The Ashlands really doesn't reward players for dealing with all of its bullshit. It's totally isolated, not very visually appealing, hostile from start to finish, and doesn't really introduce or accelerate any of the out-of-biome mechanics like previous biomes do (farming, sailing, new cooking stations, new crafting stations, fall damage negation, etc). By far the most interesting thing you acquire in the Ashlands is a staff that sacrifices half your health to spawn a charred troll, and they aren't even allowed to be on your team!!!
The whole war-zone aesthetic would be tolerable if the biome just didn't take so damn long to finish. Like seriously, because all of the limited visibility and constant mob clearing it's extremely slow to even locate the things you need to do, never-the-less even do them! At this point, I kind of think of the Ashlands as a chore you must complete to progress beyond it. That is fundamentally not a fun thing to do, and I believe the vast majority of players will not make it to the deep north for this exact reason. Which brings me to the biggest problem.
The Ashlands does not understand what makes difficulty fun: According to the devs, the biome is hard. Really hard, actually. They seemed extremely proud of making a biome that would really give the players a true run for their money! Naturally, I was extremely excited! Unfortunately, the Ashlands is not hard because of new strategic or mechanical learning curves, it is hard because it is clumsy.
Flametal mining is contrived and hostile. The pillars are a pain to climb with the game's terrible collision. Have you ever been crushed between the underside of a sinking flametal vein and your basalt bomb platform? 'Cus I have! Even worse, every time I actually whack a Flametal pillar (which by the way, wants to kill me even more than the monsters do) I'm personally inviting every entity in a 10 mile radius to form a mosh pit right below me.
Grapevine harvesting and planting is too slow. They take forever to find, even longer to grow, and cant even be planted in their natural biome without a shield generator? (What's up with that by the way?) I will admit that I love the way they look and depending on where you land you might get lucky and find them early, in which case this point is pretty moot. In my case, I had fully upgraded gear and had already cleared a fortress before I even found my first Vineberry.
Fortress "sieging", as the devs would like to call it, is kind of... useless? The siege weapons are clumsy and ineffective, and are immediately secondary to the brute force method of building a wooden staircase and bombarding the inside with fireballs until everything in it is dead. By the time you even reach a fortress, the relentless mob clearing just to get there has sucked all the fun out of the would-be battle anyway. (By the way, who though that it would be a good idea to make the only unique fortress mob a necromancer that summons even more of the most annoying mob in the entire biome?? Hurray, yet another swarm of reskinned, stat-boosted greydwarves!)
Honestly, I wouldn't even call the biome "hard". I would just call it painful. Things that are hard are generally things you can get better at. I don't think it particularly fits this category.
Lingering questions: While there are many things I like about the biome as a concept, I don't know if there is a single mechanic in the Ashlands that I actually think is well-designed. Now that I'm basically done with the biome, I look back and ask myself a number of questions about things I encountered. Were these really fun? or were they just tedious. I'll let you decide:

• Why is the only ship you can take through the spires so difficult to steer? If you want it to feel large and heavy, that's fine... but then why do spires spawn so densely that it constantly gets beached?
• Why do basalt bomb platforms only last for like 30 seconds? If you want them to not permanently mark the landscape, why not make them last at least long enough for players to reuse them for approaching and escaping from the pillars? Why make the player interact with the admittedly funky aiming mechanics to throw more platforms as the pillar is sinking?
• Why can the charred and Asksvins go in the lava if you can't? They're not immune to fire damage from a staff, but they can wade through lava? Wouldn't it make more sense to encourage players to use the lava as a risky resting place? Something like, "go out into the lava with basalt bombs to escape the horde briefly, but make sure you don't slip!"? Maybe then, once the player has cleared a fortress and acquired their first set of lava-immunity potions (or boots or whatever), they will have an advantage over the horde in terms of mobility. You know, like in every single other biome?
• Why are there no lava-walking boots?
• Why do tamed Asksvins animals not have a "passive mode", or a "follow" command like wolves, or at least some kind of hitching post? If the idea of asksvins is to be able to ride over lava to pillars, why make them run away from the pillars and to their death the instant the player gets off of them?
• Why are there no lava-walking boots........?
• Why make the step heights on flametal ore pillars only convenient/resonable to climb when wearing the feather cape that is extremely weak to fire? Isn't the idea of the fire weakness to discourage its use in the Ashlands? If you know your movement & collision mechanics feel clunky, why design the pillars in such a way that scaling them is necessary to escape certain death?
• Boots in lava no walking on it why tho........?
• Why make the spawnrate for monsters so uniformly high? The combat is extremely simple, and these monsters do pretty substantial damage in melee. This leads to a boring and frustrating "swarming" experience, where players have to run from monsters, inevitably picking up more monsters on the way. Couldn't you fix this by just have areas of extreme monster density like in every other biome which can be "cleared". Doesn't this work better with the power-up based combat your entire system is based off of? Doesn't this also double as another reason to actually explore in the Ashlands, as when players clear one area, they need to continue on to the next?
• If you want a new paradigm where defeating the horde isn't enough to "clear" an area, wouldn't you at least want to counteract this with some new mechanic that spawn-proofs/suppresses large areas? Or maybe a set of armor that reduces player-made sounds? Why doesn't that exist?
• Why not reward the player with outside-the-biome progression? Why not use this as the reason to go to the Ashlands in the first place? Teleporting metals is an obvious great example, but it feels like it was an afterthought made late in development so that the Ashlands would be even remotely tolerable, given that it's a nightmare to sail to. With an entire community full of dedicated players who love the game proposing extremely popular changes all the time... why not use some of those? (shield generators could also repair builds! Redbeard Dvegrs could offer unique item trading! New cores & metal could somehow accelerate or automate farming! Any of the above...)

TLDR: After finishing the Ashlands I struggle to see why so many design decisions were made that make the biome so relentless, tedious, and anti-exploration. It's like they took all of the experiences and mechanics that people love about the game and replaced them with all of the ones people find painful and annoying. It is extremely disappointing, and will prevent most players from finishing the game, or even the biome itself.

General
I am looking for a lady between 28 and 35 years old, for a committed monogamous childfree relationship. My goal is to become a true team, supporting each other, caring for each other, nurturing each other and helping each other grow and realise our goals and dreams as much as possible. I'm hoping to find someone that values a relationship as much as I do and takes it seriously. It's not the only thing my life revolves around, but it's also not just something 'nice to have' for me.
I tried to be as concise as possible while still providing what details I think are crucial to know; I realise this post turned out very long, but I prefer those because I can get as good an idea as possible with detailed descriptions, bar actually talking to the person, and find that very valuable, so if that also applies to you, that would be awesome.
Basics
I am 186cm tall, slim/fit built, dark brown hair, brown eyes. Both my arms are tattooed (full sleeve), as are my calves and the areas above my ankles. Regarding pictures see below. I am a runner (ranging from 5k to full marathon), training multiple times a week. I'm also vegan. My love languages are physical touch and words of affirmation. While I am mostly securely attached, withdrawing from me triggers anxiety and I have made a horrible experience with a fearful avoidant partner in the past, so that is something I fear I cannot deal with again.
I am also an atheist.
I am a very warm, soft and sensitive person, I think I am humorous, I am self reflecting a lot and I can also be really passionate and romantic. Those are traits that also are really important to me in a woman.
I can be quite social, I am a good talker, but also love to listen to really get to know someone on a deeper level. I can enjoy an evening out with friends just as much as the silence of sitting at the shores of the river and watching the sunset in solitude (although I've been craving to watch it together with a partner for a really long time now). I can be out in a pub, at a rave, a metal show or in the stadium watching football and have the time of my life, but I cannot do these things every day; I need recharge time (on the sofa, in the woods for a run, a lazy Sunday staying in bed etc.). This should give you an idea; basically, I am a homebody that thoroughly enjoys going out in moderation.
I won't say too much about hobbies; suffice it to say I am into the dark, the obscure, the macabre, the occult, the mysterious, the erotic. It won't surprise you that I had a gothic phase in my youth, bonus points if you did too!
What I am looking for
Although similar hobbies and interests are a plus (and there have to be at least a couple things we have in common), emotional and sexual compatibility are more important to me. I am a very sensitive and emotional person (I do cry easily and by this point I don't think I'll ever be able to change that, sorry), so if you're too, we will definitely understand each other. I need someone who I can open up to (which I do rather quickly, anyway), be myself, bare my soul to and I need these things from you, too. I've had my share of emotionally unavailable women who were afraid of intimacy so I know I can't deal with that again because of the way how those things affect me. I am always emotionally invested with the woman I pursue and in those cases that was to my detriment. But my ability to feel so deep is also something I wouldn't want to change because as of yet, although it's getting harder, I haven't given up on finding someone.
With those emotional needs come two requirements that I found to be vital over the years: First, being able to be silly and cutesy together and to accept each other's inner child and care for it. I am not talking about having to deal with another person's immaturity or inability to perform basic adult skills, rather with the way sadness, hurt, anxiety and being overwhelmed manifests for me (and maybe for you, too?). I need someone who is able to comfort me, to hold me, to allow me to be weak and needy for a while until I've calmed down, and I'm more than ready to offer the same. Your inner child can come out for a while, no problem (: Also in a positive way: Thankfully, today everyone seems to be understanding of the cuteness overload cats (or any animal baby, really) can cause; I need that with a partner. I also still have plushies as comfort animals (some of which in quite a litteral sense as they make for really amazing pillows) and ideally, you do too.
There is a saying that in every relationship, one person is the stronger one. In the past, I have been with women who obviously were stronger than me, but that doesn't mean they always had to be strong, far from it. I certainly, like I said, need to be able to feel protected, but it's not like I'm a particularly needy partner, like everyone, I have my ups and downs, but I can pull my weight and have been told by past partners that I am very caring and that they felt safe and understood with me, and providing that for my partner is really important for me as well – this just to put the picture I'm (somewhat haphazardly) trying to paint into perspective.
Second, sexual compatibility. I have a high libido and I have kinks, so you should, too, in order that we can explore and enjoy them together. I found out how fulfilling living out those fantasies can be after years of never being able to try and in a relationship, sexual fulfillment for both partners is a must for me. Someone on here has coined the term 'filthy best friends and partners' which I have no shame to be stealing because it's such an apt description.
I'm looking for a balance between healthy independence and being emotionally present. A relationship where we 'get' each other; we're both each other's number one and treat each other like royalty. Where a disagreement leads to more intimacy between us as we understand better, not to resentment. Where we're comfortable baring our souls to each other, becoming a safe haven and secure base for each other. I don't like the modern notion that you 'should never feel too safe in a relationship' because that sounds like running from the mafia (and believe me, I love mafia movies); you should always put in effort, yes, but safety is one of the things I always want to experience and provide in a relationship. We shouldn't fear that a disagreement leads straight to breakup. I know ‘self-sufficiency’ is trending right now, but I feel like as partners, we’re partly responsible for each other and not our own but also each other’s happiness. Being dependant and dependable at the same time is important; making each other’s wellbeing a priority. I love the relationship model outlined in Stan Tatkin’s ‘Wired for Love’ and you should, too. If you’re not able to healthily depend on someone and their support while you’re having a hard time, look elsewhere. I know codependency is the latest thing everyone’s afraid of, but experiencing someone you’ve grown very attached to just bailing because they’re counterdependent and can’t stand working on themselves while simultaneously letting you in is something I’d rather not go through again. If I have to be afraid you’ll run at the first major problem that surfaces, even if it’s a ‘you’-problem, it’s not going to work. I think that all things can and need to be talked about. If you think ignoring someone for days is a form of communication, please look elsewhere. If you think’s it’s okay to lovebomb someone and then leave after a couple of months with the minimum amount of information and no proper conversation because you’re not ready to own up to what’s happening to you emotionally, please look elsewhere.
I am looking for someone real. We all have our problems, I don't want or need a 'perfect' person. You don't have everything figured out or 'all your shit' together. Be imperfect. Admit when you feel sad and angry, lonely, hopeless or even helpless – it's all relatable. Don't hide it. Be quirky, be dorky, be witchy, be opinionated, be yourself. Don't pretend.
I'm looking for someone to share romance with. Not great gestures, but small, meaningful ones. Poems for each other, expressing our feelings; cards with heartfelt messages that we put our perfume/cologne on, and a symbol that means something to us only, the print of your lips with lipstick, the way I sign and seal my letters for you.
Just as important to me is agreeing on living a healthy life, staying in shape both for ourselves and for each other, regularly working out and eating healthy. I am drug and disease-free and expect the same of you. I do drink as I love a good beer or glass of wine, rum or whiskey, but I've never really been drinking much and especially during the past year have further reduced it. One vice I have is that I enjoy a couple of cigars a year, but I can definitely accommodate you in this regard.
Another important point is aligned life goals: many childfree people seem to be adventurous, but that is a trait I don't associate with myself at all. I value safety more than adventure. I want to build a home together with my partner, a safespace for the both of us, where we always feel loved and protected, a place that we create together, make it cozy together so we just love to get back home there wherever we might have been, a home we decorate together for Halloween (my favourite holiday) or Christmas or Springtime, as we live in tune with the seasons, seeing them change around us, enjoying nature on a walk or the rain outside, reading in our cozy home. I value stability and harmony.
Appearance-wise, I am into ladies on the smaller side (albeit not regarding height), so I'm looking for someone petite/slim/skinny/healthy-fit. Likewise, I am not really muscular and don't have visible abs; like I said, I'm a runner, so if you're more into the gym-type, I'm not a good fit.
The natural progression for me would be to move from text to voice calls, videochat and then meeting up, all of that rather sooner than later. Not that there’s a need to rush anything, but having my heart broken because I already developed feelings due to a longer timeframe and then everything unexpectedly turning to shit is not something I want to have to live through again. I’d rather see earlier if we’re compatible or not; as someone who catches feelings fast I need to protect myself, I unfortunately had to learn that
Caveats/Possible red flags

• I don't like travelling as it stresses me out; I don't mind being somewhere else for a week or two, but the organisation part of it drains my energy very quickly and dealing with stuff that doesn't work out is overwhelming to me. Smaller trips are ok, but I'm not the right person to travel the world with.
• I am not the most awake person in the morning (i.e. I identify as nightowl)
• I need space for my own projects/time to recharge after social interaction.
• While I feel like I am in tune with my inner child and working on/with it through therapy, I realise this is something that could be a turn-off for people.
• I have been diagnosed with depressive episodes in the past and am taking anti-depressants right now. I realise that I am a work in progress, maybe more so than in times past, but I manage and the fact that I'm putting myself out here is based on me being ready to get to know someone new.
• I want to create a home together here, as I'm firmly rooted where I was born; I realise this is a lot to ask, but I have seen many people here being open to moving, so I want to at least try reaching out to them.

If you're interested, feel free to message me and include some pictures of yourself and I will reply with my own. Have a nice day (:

"Why Did Jesus Die on the Cross?"

The main reason Jesus died on the cross was to defeat Satan and set us free from his oppressive rule. Everything else that Jesus accomplished was to be understood as an aspect and consequence of this victory (e.g., Recapitulation, Moral Influence, etc.).
This understanding of why Jesus had to die is called the Christus Victor (Latin for “Christ is Victorious”) view of the atonement. But, what exactly was Christ victorious from, and why? To find out the answers to these questions, we have to turn to the Old Testament, as that's what the apostles would often allude to in order to properly teach their audience the message they were trying to convey (Rom. 15:4).
The OT is full of conflict between the Father (YHVH) and false gods, between YHVH and cosmic forces of chaos. The Psalms speak of this conflict between YHVH and water monsters of the deeps (an ancient image for chaos) (Psa. 29:3-4; 74:10-14; 77:16, 19; 89:9-10; 104:2-9, etc).
The liberation of Israel from Egypt wasn’t just a conflict between Pharaoh and Moses. It was really between YHVH and the false gods of Egypt.
Regardless of whether you think the aforementioned descriptions are literal or metaphorical, the reality that the Old Testament describes is that humanity lived in a “cosmic war zone.”
The Christus Victor motif is about Christ reigning victorious over wicked principalities and Satan's kingdom, and is strongly emphasized throughout the New Testament. Scripture declares that Jesus came to drive out "the prince of this world” (John 12:31), to “destroy the works of the devil” (1 John 3:8), to “destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil” (Heb. 2:14) and to “put all enemies under his feet” (1 Cor 15:25). Jesus came to overpower the “strong man” (Satan) who held the world in bondage and worked with his Church to plunder his "palace" (Luke 11:21-22). He came to end the reign of the cosmic “thief” who seized the world to “steal, and to kill, and to destroy” the life YHVH intended for us (John 10:10). Jesus came and died on the cross to disarm “the principalities and powers” and make a “shew of them openly [i.e., public spectacle]” by “triumphing over them in [the cross]” (Col. 2:15).
Beyond these explicit statements, there are many other passages that express the Christus Victor motif as well. For example, the first prophecy in the Bible foretells that a descendent of Eve (Jesus) would crush the head of the serpent (Gen. 3:15). The first Christian sermon ever preached proclaimed that Jesus in principle conquered all YHVH's enemies (Acts 2:32-36). And the single most frequently quoted Old Testament passage by New Testament authors is Psalm 110:1 which predicts that Christ would conquer all YHVH’s opponents. (Psalm 110 is quoted or alluded to in Matthew 22:41-45; 26:64, Mark 12:35-37; 14:62, Luke 20:41-44; 22:69, Acts 5:31; 7:55-56, Romans 8:34, 1st Corinthians 15:22-25, Ephesians 1:20, Hebrews 1:3; 1:13; 5:6, 10; 6:20; 7:11, 15, 17, 21; 8:1; 10:12-13, 1st Peter 3:22, and Revelation 3:21.) According to New Testament scholar Oscar Cullman, the frequency with which New Testament authors cite this Psalm is the greatest proof that Christ’s “victory over the angel powers stands at the very center of early Christian thought.”
Because of man's rebellion, the Messiah's coming involved a rescue mission that included a strategy for vanquishing the powers of darkness.
Since YHVH is a God of love who gives genuine “say-so” to both angels and humans, YHVH rarely accomplishes His providential plans through coercion. YHVH relies on His infinite wisdom to achieve His goals. Nowhere is YHVH's wisdom put more on display than in the manner in which He outsmarted Satan and the powers of evil, using their own evil to bring about their defeat.
Most readers probably know the famous story from ancient Greece about the Trojan Horse. To recap the story, Troy and Greece had been locked in a ten-year-long vicious war when, according to Homer and Virgil, the Greeks came up with a brilliant idea. They built an enormous wooden horse, hid soldiers inside and offered it to the Trojans as a gift, claiming they were conceding defeat and going home. The delighted Trojans accepted the gift and proceeded to celebrate by drinking themselves into a drunken stupor. When night came and the Trojan warriors were too wasted to fight, the Greeks exited the horse, unlocked the city gates to quietly let all their compatriots in, and easily conquered the city, thus winning the war.
Historians debate whether any of this actually happened. But either way, as military strategies go, it’s brilliant.
Now, there are five clues in the New Testament that suggest YHVH was using something like this Trojan Horse strategy against the powers when he sent Jesus into the world:
1) The Bible tells us that YHVH's victory over the powers of darkness was achieved by the employment of YHVH’s wisdom, and was centered on that wisdom having become reality in Jesus Christ (Rom. 16:25, 1 Cor. 2:7, Eph. 3:9-10, Col. 1:26). It also tells us that, for some reason, this Christ-centered wisdom was kept “secret and hidden” throughout the ages. It’s clear from this that YHVH's strategy was to outsmart and surprise the powers by sending Jesus.
2) While humans don’t generally know Jesus’ true identity during his ministry, demons do. They recognize Jesus as the Son of God, the Messiah, but, interestingly enough, they have no idea what he’s doing (Mark 1:24; 3:11; 5:7, Luke 8:21). Again, the wisdom of YHVH in sending Jesus was hidden from them.
3) We’re told that, while humans certainly share in the responsibility for the crucifixion, Satan and the powers were working behind the scenes to bring it about (John 13:27 cf. 1 Cor. 2:6-8). These forces of evil helped orchestrate the crucifixion.
4) We’re taught that if the “princes of this world [age]” had understood the secret wisdom of YHVH, “they would not have crucified the Lord of glory” (1 Cor 2:8 cf. vss 6-7). Apparently, Satan and the powers regretted orchestrating Christ’s crucifixion once they learned of the wisdom of YHVH that was behind it.
5) Finally, we can begin to understand why the powers came to regret crucifying “the Lord of glory” when we read that it was by means of the crucifixion that the “handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us [i.e., the charge of our legal indebtedness]” was “[taken] out of the way [i.e., canceled]” as the powers were disarmed. In this way Christ “triumph[ed] over” the powers by "his cross” and even “made a shew of them openly” (Col. 2:14-15). Through Christ’s death and resurrection YHVH's enemies were vanquished and placed under his Messiah's feet, and ultimately His own in the end (1 Cor. 15:23-28).
Putting these five clues together, we can discern YHVH's Trojan Horse strategy in sending Jesus.
The powers couldn’t discern why Jesus came because YHVH's wisdom was hidden from them. YHVH's wisdom was motivated by unfathomable love, and since Satan and the other powers were evil, they lacked the capacity to understand it. Their evil hearts prevented them from suspecting what YHVH was up to.
What the powers did understand was that Jesus was mortal. This meant he was killable. Lacking the capacity to understand that this was the means by which YHVH would ultimately bring about the defeat of death (and thus, pave the road for the resurrection itself), they never suspected that making Jesus vulnerable to their evil might actually be part of YHVH's infinitely wise plan.
And so they took the bait (or "ransom"; Matt. 20:28, Mark 10:45, 1 Tim. 2:5-6). Utilizing Judas and other willing human agents, the powers played right into YHVH’s secret plan and orchestrated the crucifixion of the Messiah (Acts 2:22-23; 4:28). YHVH thus brilliantly used the self-inflicted incapacity of evil to understand love against itself. And, like light dispelling darkness, the unfathomably beautiful act of YHVH's love in sending the willing Messiah as a "ransom" to these blood-thirsty powers defeated them. The whole creation was in principle freed and reconciled to YHVH, while everything written against us humans was nailed to the cross, thus robbing the powers of the only legal claim they had on us. They were “spoiled [i.e., disempowered]” (Col. 2:14-15).
As happened to the Trojans in accepting the gift from the Greeks, in seizing on Christ’s vulnerability and orchestrating his crucifixion, the powers unwittingly cooperated with YHVH to unleash the one power in the world that dispels all evil and sets captives free. It’s the power of self-sacrificial love.

Why Penal Substitution Is Unbiblical

For the sake of keeping this already lengthy post as short as possible I'm not going to spend too much time on why exactly PSA (Penal Substitutionary Atonement) is inconsistent with Scripture, but I'll go ahead and point out the main reasons why I believe this is so, and let the reader look further into this subject by themselves, being that there are many resources out there which have devoted much more time than I ever could here in supporting this premise.

"Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:"-1 Corinthians 5:7

The Passover is one of the two most prominent images in the New Testament given as a comparison to Christ's atonement and what it accomplished, (the other most common image being the Day of Atonement sacrifice).
In the Passover, the blood of the lamb on the door posts of the Hebrews in the book of Exodus was meant to mark out those who were YHVH's, not be a symbol of PSA, as the lamb itself was not being punished by God in place of the Hebrews, but rather the kingdom of Egypt (and thus, allegorically speaking, the kingdom of darkness which opposed YHVH) was what was being judged and punished, because those who were not "covered" by the blood of the lamb could be easily identified as not part of God's kingdom/covenant and liberated people.
Looking at the Day of Atonement sacrifice (which, again, Christ's death is repeatedly compared to throughout the New Testament), this ritual required a ram, a bull, and two goats (Lev. 16:3-5). The ram was for a burnt offering intended to please God (Lev. 16:3-4). The bull served as a sin offering for Aaron, the high priest, and his family. In this case, the sin offering restored the priest to ritual purity, allowing him to occupy sacred space and be near YHVH’s presence. Two goats taken from "the congregation” were needed for the single sin offering for the people (Lev. 16:5). So why two goats?
The high priest would cast lots over the two goats, with one chosen as a sacrifice “for the Lord” (Lev. 16:8). The blood of that goat would purify the people. The second goat was not sacrificed or designated “for the Lord.” On the contrary, this goat—the one that symbolically carried the sins away from the camp of Israel into the wilderness—was “for Azazel” (Lev. 16:8-10).
What—or who—is Azazel?
The Hebrew term azazel (עזאזל) occurs four times in Leviticus 16 but nowhere else in most people's canon of the Bible, (and I say "most people's canon," because some people do include 1 Enoch in their canon of Scripture, which of course goes into great detail about this "Azazel" figure). Many translations prefer to translate the term as a phrase, “the goat that goes away,” which is the same idea conveyed in the King James Version’s “scapegoat.” Other translations treat the word as a name: Azazel. The “scapegoat” option is possible, but since the phrase “for Azazel” parallels the phrase “for YHVH” (“for the Lord”), the wording suggests that two divine figures are being contrasted by the two goats.
A strong case can be made for translating the term as the name Azazel. Ancient Jewish texts show that Azazel was understood as a demonic figure associated with the wilderness. The Mishnah (ca. AD 200; Yoma 6:6) records that the goat for Azazel was led to a cliff and pushed over, ensuring it would not return with its death. This association of the wilderness with evil is also evident in the New Testament, as this was where Jesus met the devil (Matt. 4:1). Also, in Leviticus 17:1-7 we learn that some Israelites had been accustomed to sacrificing offerings to "devils" (alternatively translated as “goat demons”). The Day of Atonement replaced this illegitimate practice.
The second goat was not sent into the wilderness as a sacrifice to a foreign god or demon. The act of sending the live goat out into the wilderness, which was unholy ground, was to send the sins of the people where they belonged—to the demonic domain. With one goat sacrificed to bring purification and access to YHVH and one goat sent to carry the people’s sins to the demonic domain, this annual ritual reinforced the identity of the true God and His mercy and holiness.
When Jesus died on the cross for all of humanity’s sins, he was crucified outside the city, paralleling the sins of the people being cast to the wilderness via the goat to Azazel. Jesus died once for all sinners, negating the need for this ritual.
As previously stated, the goat which had all the sin put on it was sent alive off to the wilderness, while the blood of the goat which was blameless was used to purify the temple and the people. Penal substitution would necessitate the killing of the goat which had the sin put on it.
Mind you, this is the only sacrificial ritual of any kind in the Torah in which sins are placed on an animal. The only time it happens is this, and that animal is not sacrificed. Most PSA proponents unwittingly point to this ritual as evidence of their view, despite it actually serving as evidence to the contrary, because most people don't read their Old Testament and don't familiarize themselves with the "boring parts" like Leviticus (when it's actually rather important to do so, since that book explains how exactly animal offerings were to be carried out and why they were done in the first place).
In the New Testament, Christ's blood was not only meant to mark out those who were his, but also expel the presence of sin and ritual uncleanness so as to make the presence of YHVH manifest in the believer's life. Notice how God's wrath isn't poured out on Christ in our stead on this view, but rather His wrath was poured out on those who weren't covered, and the presence of sin and evil were merely removed by that which is pure and blameless (Christ's blood) for the believer.
All this is the difference between expiation and propitiation.

The Content of Paul's Gospel Message

When the New Testament writers talked about “the gospel,” they referred not to the Protestant doctrine of justification sola fide–the proposition that if we will stop trying to win God’s favor and only just believe that God has exchanged our sin for Christ’s perfect righteousness, then in God’s eyes we will have the perfect righteousness required both for salvation and for assuaging our guilty consciences–but rather they referred to the simple but explosive proposition Kyrios Christos, “Christ is Lord.” That is to say, the gospel was, properly speaking, the royal announcement that Jesus of Nazareth was the God of Israel’s promised Messiah, the King of kings and Lord of lords.
The New Testament writers were not writing in a cultural or linguistic vacuum and their language of euangelion (good news) and euangelizomai would have been understood by their audience in fairly specific ways. Namely, in the Greco-Roman world for which the New Testament authors wrote, euangelion/euangelizomai language typically had to do with either A) the announcement of the accession of a ruler, or B) the announcement of a victory in battle, and would probably have been understood along those lines.
Let’s take the announcements of a new ruler first. The classic example of such a language is the Priene Calendar Inscription, dating to circa 9 BC, which celebrates the rule (and birthday) of Caesar Augustus as follows:
"It was seeming to the Greeks in Asia, in the opinion of the high priest Apollonius of Menophilus Azanitus: Since Providence, which has ordered all things of our life and is very much interested in our life, has ordered things in sending Augustus, whom she filled with virtue for the benefit of men, sending him as a savior [soter] both for us and for those after us, him who would end war and order all things, and since Caesar by his appearance [epiphanein] surpassed the hopes of all those who received the good tidings [euangelia], not only those who were benefactors before him, but even the hope among those who will be left afterward, and the birthday of the god [he genethlios tou theou] was for the world the beginning of the good tidings [euangelion] through him; and Asia resolved it in Smyrna."
The association of the term euangelion with the announcement of Augustus’ rule is clear enough and is typical of how this language is used elsewhere. To give another example, Josephus records that at the news of the accession of the new emperor Vespasian (69 AD) “every city kept festival for the good news (euangelia) and offered sacrifices on his behalf.” (The Jewish War, IV.618). Finally, a papyrus dating to ca. 498 AD begins:
"Since I have become aware of the good news (euangeliou) about the proclamation as Caesar (of Gaius Julius Verus Maximus Augustus)…"
This usage occurs also in the Septuagint, the Greek translations of the Jewish Scriptures. For instance LXX Isaiah 52:7 reads, “How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him who brings good news (euangelizomenou), who publishes peace, who brings good news (euangelizomenos) of salvation, who says to Zion, ‘Your God reigns.'" Similarly, LXX Isaiah 40:9-10 reads:

"…Go up on a high mountain, you who bring good tidings (ho euangelizomenos) to Sion; lift up your voice with strength, you who bring good tidings (ho euangelizomenos); lift it up, do not fear; say to the cities of Ioudas, “See your God!” Behold, the Lord comes with strength, and his arm with authority (kyrieias)…."-NETS, Esaias 40:9-10

This consistent close connection between euangelion/euangelizomai language and announcements of rule strongly suggests that many of the initial hearers/readers of the early Christians’ evangelical language would likely have understood that language as the announcement of a new ruler (see, e.g., Acts 17:7), and, unless there is strong NT evidence to the contrary, we should presume that the NT writers probably intended their language to be so understood.
However, the other main way in which euangelion/euangelizomai language was used in the Greco-Roman world was with reference to battle reports, announcements of victory in war. A classic example of this sort of usage can be found in LXX 2 Samuel 18:19ff, where David receives word that his traitorous son, Absalom, has been defeated in battle. Euangelion/euangelizomai is used throughout the passage for the communications from the front.
As already shown throughout this post, the NT speaks of Jesus’s death and resurrection as a great victory over the powers that existed at that time and, most importantly, over death itself. Jesus’ conquest of the principalities and powers was the establishment of his rule and comprehensive authority over heaven and earth, that is, of his Lordship over all things (again, at that time).
This was the content of Paul's gospel message...

Justification, and the "New" Perspective on Paul

The following quotation is from The Gospel Coalition, and I believe it to be a decently accurate summary of the NPP (New Perspective on Paul), despite it being from a source which is in opposition to it:

The New Perspective on Paul, a major scholarly shift that began in the 1980s, argues that the Jewish context of the New Testament has been wrongly understood and that this misunderstand[ing] has led to errors in the traditional-Protestant understanding of justification. According to the New Perspective, the Jewish systems of salvation were not based on works-righteousness but rather on covenantal nomism, the belief that one enters the people of God by grace and stays in through obedience to the covenant. This means that Paul could not have been referring to works-righteousness by his phrase “works of the law”; instead, he was referring to Jewish boundary markers that made clear who was or was not within the people of God. For the New Perspective, this is the issue that Paul opposes in the NT. Thus, justification takes on two aspects for the New Perspective rather than one; initial justification is by faith (grace) and recognizes covenant status (ecclesiology), while final justification is partially by works, albeit works produced by the Spirit.

I believe what's called the "new perspective" is actually rather old, and that the Reformers' view of Paul is what is truly new, being that the Lutheran understanding of Paul is simply not Biblical.
The Reformation perspective understands Paul to be arguing against a legalistic Jewish culture that seeks to earn their salvation through works. However, supporters of the NPP argue that Paul has been misread. We contend he was actually combating Jews who were boasting because they were God's people, the "elect" or the "chosen ones." Their "works," so to speak, were done to show they were God's covenant people and not to earn their salvation.
The key questions involve Paul’s view(s) of the law and the meaning of the controversy in which Paul was engaged. Paul strongly argued that we are “justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law” (Gal. 2:16b). Since the time of Martin Luther, this has been understood as an indictment of legalistic efforts to merit favor before God. Judaism was cast in the role of the medieval "church," and so Paul’s protests became very Lutheran, with traditional-Protestant theology reinforced in all its particulars (along with its limitations) as a result. In hermeneutical terms, then, the historical context of Paul’s debate will answer the questions we have about what exactly the apostle meant by the phrase "works of the law," along with other phrases often used as support by the Reformers for their doctrine of Sola Fide (justification by faith alone), like when Paul mentions "the righteousness of God."
Obviously an in-depth analysis of the Pauline corpus and its place in the context of first-century Judaism would take us far beyond the scope of this brief post. We can, however, quickly survey the topography of Paul’s thought in context, particularly as it has emerged through the efforts of recent scholarship, and note some salient points which may be used as the basis of a refurbished soteriology.
[Note: The more popular scholars associated with the NPP are E.P. Sanders, James Dunn, and N.T. Wright. Dunn was the first to coin the term "The New Perspective" in a 1983 Manson Memorial Lecture, The New Perspective on Paul and the Law.]
Varying authors since the early 1900's have brought up the charge that Paul was misread by those in the tradition of Martin Luther and other Protestant Reformers. Yet, it wasn't until E.P. Sanders' 1977 book, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, that scholars began to pay much attention to the issue. In his book, Sanders argues that the Judaism of Paul's day has been wrongly criticized as a religion of "works-salvation" by those in the Protestant tradition.
A fundamental premise in the NPP is that Judaism was actually a religion of grace. Sander's puts it clearly:
"On the point at which many have found the decisive contrast between Paul and Judaism - grace and works - Paul is in agreement with Palestinian Judaism... Salvation is by grace but judgment is according to works'...God saves by grace, but... within the framework established by grace he rewards good deeds and punishes transgression." (Paul and Palestinian Judaism, p. 543)
N.T. Wright adds that, "we have misjudged early Judaism, especially Pharisaism, if we have thought of it as an early version of Pelagianism," (Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said, p. 32).
Sanders has coined a now well-known phrase to describe the character of first-century Palestinian Judaism: “covenantal nomism.” The meaning of “covenantal nomism” is that human obedience is not construed as the means of entering into God’s covenant. That cannot be earned; inclusion within the covenant body is by the grace of God. Rather, obedience is the means of maintaining one’s status within the covenant. And with its emphasis on divine grace and forgiveness, Judaism was never a religion of legalism.
If covenantal nomism was operating as the primary category under which Jews understood the Law, then when Jews spoke of obeying commandments, or when they required strict obedience of themselves and fellow Jews, it was because they were "keeping the covenant," rather than out of legalism.
More recently, N.T. Wright has made a significant contribution in his little book, What Saint Paul Really Said. Wright’s focus is the gospel and the doctrine of justification. With incisive clarity he demonstrates that the core of Paul’s gospel was not justification by faith, but the death and resurrection of Christ and his exaltation as Lord. The proclamation of the gospel was the proclamation of Jesus as Lord, the Messiah who fulfilled Israel’s expectations. Romans 1:3-4, not 1:16-17, is the gospel, contrary to traditional thinking. Justification is not the center of Paul’s thought, but an outworking of it:
"[T]he doctrine of justification by faith is not what Paul means by ‘the gospel’. It is implied by the gospel; when the gospel is proclaimed, people come to faith and so are regarded by God as members of his people. But ‘the gospel’ is not an account of how people get saved. It is, as we saw in an earlier chapter, the proclamation of the lordship of Jesus Christ….Let us be quite clear. ‘The gospel’ is the announcement of Jesus’ lordship, which works with power to bring people into the family of Abraham, now redefined around Jesus Christ and characterized solely by faith in him. ‘Justification’ is the doctrine which insists that all those who have this faith belong as full members of this family, on this basis and no other." (pp. 132, 133)
Wright brings us to this point by showing what “justification” would have meant in Paul’s Jewish context, bound up as it was in law-court terminology, eschatology, and God’s faithfulness to God’s covenant.
Specifically, Wright explodes the myth that the pre-Christian Saul was a pious, proto-Pelagian moralist seeking to earn his individual passage into heaven. Wright capitalizes on Paul’s autobiographical confessions to paint rather a picture of a zealous Jewish nationalist whose driving concern was to cleanse Israel of Gentiles as well as Jews who had lax attitudes toward the Torah. Running the risk of anachronism, Wright points to a contemporary version of the pre-Christian Saul: Yigal Amir, the zealous Torah-loyal Jew who assassinated Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin for exchanging Israel’s land for peace. Wright writes:
"Jews like Saul of Tarsus were not interested in an abstract, ahistorical system of salvation... They were interested in the salvation which, they believed, the one true God had promised to his people Israel." (pp. 32, 33)
Wright maintains that as a Christian, Paul continued to challenge paganism by taking the moral high ground of the creational monotheist. The doctrine of justification was not what Paul preached to the Gentiles as the main thrust of his gospel message; it was rather “the thing his converts most needed to know in order to be assured that they really were part of God’s people” after they had responded to the gospel message.
Even while taking the gospel to the Gentiles, however, Paul continued to criticize Judaism “from within” even as he had as a zealous Pharisee. But whereas his mission before was to root out those with lax attitudes toward the Torah, now his mission was to demonstrate that God’s covenant faithfulness (righteousness) has already been revealed in Jesus Christ.
At this point Wright carefully documents Paul’s use of the controversial phrase “God’s righteousness” and draws out the implications of his meaning against the background of a Jewish concept of justification. The righteousness of God and the righteousness of the party who is “justified” cannot be confused because the term bears different connotations for the judge than for the plaintiff or defendant. The judge is “righteous” if his or her judgment is fair and impartial; the plaintiff or defendant is “righteous” if the judge rules in his or her favor. Hence:
"If we use the language of the law court, it makes no sense whatsoever to say that the judge imputes, imparts, bequeaths, conveys or otherwise transfers his righteousness to either the plaintiff or the defendant. Righteousness is not an object, a substance or a gas which can be passed across the courtroom. For the judge to be righteous does not mean that the court has found in his favor. For the plaintiff or defendant to be righteous does not mean that he or she has tried the case properly or impartially. To imagine the defendant somehow receiving the judge’s righteousness is simply a category mistake. That is not how the language works." (p. 98)
However, Wright makes the important observation that even with the forensic metaphor, Paul’s theology is not so much about the courtroom as it is about God’s love.
Righteousness is not an impersonal, abstract standard, a measuring-stick or a balancing scale. That was, and still is, a Greek view. Righteousness, Biblically speaking, grows out of covenant relationship. We forgive because we have been forgiven (Matt. 18:21-35); “we love" because God “first loved us” (1 John 4:19). Love is the fulfillment of the law (Rom. 13:8, 10, Gal 5:14, Jam. 2:8). Paul even looked forward to a day when “we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad” (2 Cor. 5:10), and he acknowledged that his clear conscience did not necessarily ensure this verdict (1 Cor. 4:4), but he was confident nevertheless. Paul did in fact testify of his clear conscience: “For our rejoicing is this, the testimony of our conscience, that in simplicity and godly sincerity, not with fleshly wisdom, but by the grace of God, we have had our conversation [i.e., behavior] in the world, and more abundantly to you-ward” (2 Cor. 1:12). He was aware that he had not yet “attained” (Phil. 3:12-14), that he still struggled with the flesh, yet he was confident of the value of his performance (1 Cor. 9:27). These are hardly the convictions of someone who intends to rest entirely on the merits of an alien righteousness imputed to his or her account.
Wright went on to flesh out the doctrine of justification in Galatians, Philippians, and Romans. The “works of the law” are not proto-Pelagian efforts to earn salvation, but rather “sabbath [keeping], food-laws, circumcision” (p. 132). Considering the controversy in Galatia, Wright writes:
"Despite a long tradition to the contrary, the problem Paul addresses in Galatians is not the question of how precisely someone becomes a Christian, or attains to a relationship with God….The problem he addresses is: should his ex-pagan converts be circumcised or not? Now this question is by no means obviously to do with the questions faced by Augustine and Pelagius, or by Luther and Erasmus. On anyone’s reading, but especially within its first-century context, it has to do quite obviously with the question of how you define the people of God: are they to be defined by the badges of Jewish race, or in some other way? Circumcision is not a ‘moral’ issue; it does not have to do with moral effort, or earning salvation by good deeds. Nor can we simply treat it as a religious ritual, then designate all religious ritual as crypto-Pelagian good works, and so smuggle Pelagius into Galatia as the arch-opponent after all. First-century thought, both Jewish and Christian, simply doesn’t work like that…. [T]he polemic against the Torah in Galatians simply will not work if we ‘translate’ it into polemic either against straightforward self-help moralism or against the more subtle snare of ‘legalism’, as some have suggested. The passages about the law only work — and by ‘work’ I mean they will only make full sense in their contexts, which is what counts in the last analysis — when we take them as references to the Jewish law, the Torah, seen as the national charter of the Jewish race." (pp. 120-122)
The debate about justification, then, “wasn’t so much about soteriology as about ecclesiology; not so much about salvation as about the church.” (p. 119)
To summarize the theology of Paul in his epistles, the apostle mainly spent time arguing to those whom he were sending letters that salvation in Christ was available to all men without distinction. Jews and Gentiles alike may accept the free gift; it was not limited to any one group. Paul was vehement about this, especially in his letter to the Romans. As such, I will finish this post off by summarizing the letter itself, so as to provide Biblical support for the premises of the NPP and for what the scholars I referenced have thus far argued.
After his introduction in the epistle to an already believing and mostly Gentile audience (who would've already been familiar with the gospel proclaimed in verses 3-4), Paul makes a thematic statement in 1:16: “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.” This statement is just one of many key statements littered throughout the book of Romans that give us proper understanding of the point Paul wished to make to the interlocutors of his day, namely, salvation is available to all, whether Jew or Gentile.
In 1:16 Paul sets out a basic theme of his message in the letter to the Romans. All who believed, whether they be Jew or Gentile, were saved by the power of the gospel. The universal nature of salvation was explicitly stated. The gospel saved all without distinction, whether Jew or Greek; salvation was through the gospel of Jesus Christ. Immediately after this thematic declaration, Paul undertakes to show the universal nature of sin and guilt. In 1:18-32 Paul shows how the Gentile is guilty before God. Despite evidence of God and his attributes, which is readily available to all, they have failed to honor YHVH as God and have exchanged His glory for idolatrous worship and self-promotion. As a consequence, God handed them over in judgment (1:18-32). Paul moves to denunciation of those who would judge others while themselves being guilty of the very same offenses (2:1-5) and argues that all will be judged according to their deeds (2:6). This judgment applies to all, namely, Jew and Greek (2:9-10). This section serves as somewhat of a transition in Paul’s argument. He has highlighted the guilt of the Gentiles (1:18ff) and will shortly outline the guilt of the Jew (2:17-24). The universal statement of 2:1-11 sets the stage for Paul’s rebuke of Jewish presumption. It was not possession of the Law which delivered; it was faithful obedience. It is better to have no Law and yet to obey the essence of the Law (2:12-16) than to have the Law and not obey (2:17-3:4). Paul then defends the justice of God’s judgment (3:5-8), which leads to the conclusion that all (Jew and Gentile) are guilty before God (3:9).
Paul argues that it was a mistaken notion to think that salvation was the prerogative of the Jew only. This presumption is wrong for two reasons. First, it leads to the mistaken assumption that only Jews were eligible for this vindication (Paul deals with this misunderstanding in chapter 4 where he demonstrates that Abraham was justified by faith independently of the Law and is therefore the father of all who believe, Jew and Gentile alike). Second, it leads to the equally mistaken conclusion that all who were Jews are guaranteed of vindication. Paul demonstrates how this perspective, which would call God’s integrity into question since Paul was assuming many Jews would not experience this vindication, was misguided. He did this by demonstrating that it was never the case that all physical descendants of Israel (Jacob) were likewise recipients of the promise. In the past (9:6-33) as in the present (at that time; 11:1-10), only a remnant was preserved and only a remnant would experience vindication. Paul also argued that the unbelief of national Israel (the non-remnant) had the purpose of extending the compass of salvation. The unbelief of one group made the universal scope of the gospel possible. This universalism was itself intended to bring about the vindication of the unbelieving group (11:11-16). As a result of faith, all (Jew and Gentile) could be branches of the olive tree (11:17-24). Since faith in Christ was necessary to remain grafted into the tree, no one could boast of his position. All, Jew and Gentile alike, were dependent upon the mercy and grace of God. As a result of God’s mysterious plan, He would bring about the vindication of His people (11:25-27). [Note: It is this author's belief that this vindication occurred around 66-70 AD, with the Parousia of Christ's Church; this author is Full-Preterist in their Eschatology.]

I am looking for a lady between 25 and 35 years old, for a committed monogamous childfree relationship. My goal is to become a true team, supporting each other, caring for each other, nurturing each other and helping each other grow and realise our goals and dreams as much as possible. I'm hoping to find someone that values a relationship as much as I do and takes it seriously. It's not the only thing my life revolves around, but it's also not just something 'nice to have' for me.
I am 186cm tall, slim/fit built, dark brown hair, brown eyes. Both my arms are tattooed (full sleeve), as are my calves and the areas above my ankles. Regarding pictures see below. I am a runner, training multiple times a week. I'm also vegan. My love languages are physical touch and words of affirmation. While I am mostly securely attached, withdrawing from me triggers anxiety and I have made a horrible experience with an avoidant partner in the past, so that is something I fear I cannot deal with again.
I am also an atheist.
I am a very warm, soft and sensitive person, I think I am humorous, I am self reflecting a lot and I can also be really passionate and romantic. Those are traits that also are really important to me in a woman.
I can be quite social, I am a good talker, but also love to listen to really get to know someone on a deeper level. I can enjoy an evening out with friends just as much as the silence of sitting at the shores of the river and watching the sunset in solitude (although I've been craving to watch it together with a partner for a really long time now). I can be out in a pub, at a rave, a metal show or at a football game and have the time of my life, but I cannot do these things every day; I need recharge time (on the sofa, in the woods for a run, a lazy Sunday staying in bed etc.). This should give you an idea; basically, I am a homebody that thoroughly enjoys going out in moderation.
I won't say too much about hobbies; suffice it to say I am into the dark, the obscure, the macabre, the occult, the mysterious, the erotic. It won't surprise you that I had a gothic phase in my youth, bonus points if you did too!
What I'm looking for
Although similar hobbies and interests are a plus, emotional and intimate compatibility are more important to me. I am a very sensitive and emotional person (I do cry easily and by this point I don't think I'll ever be able to change that, sorry), so if you're too, we will definitely understand each other. I need someone who I can open up to (which I do rather quickly, anyway), be myself, bare my soul to and I need these things from you, too. I've had my share of emotionally unavailable women who were afraid of intimacy so I know I can't deal with that again because of the way how those things affect me. I am always emotionally invested with the woman I pursue and in those cases that was to my detriment. But my ability to feel so deep is also something I wouldn't want to change because as of yet, although it's getting harder, I haven't given up on finding someone.
With those emotional needs come two requirements that I found to be vital over the years: First, being able to be silly and cutesy together and to accept each other's inner child and care for it. I am not talking about having to deal with another person's immaturity or inability to perform basic adult skills, rather with the way sadness, hurt, anxiety and being overwhelmed manifests for me (and maybe for you, too?). I need someone who is able to comfort me, to hold me, to allow me to be weak and needy for a while until I've calmed down, and I'm more than ready to offer the same. Your inner child can come out for a while, no problem (: Also in a positive way: Thankfully, today everyone seems to be understanding of the cuteness overload cats (or any animal baby, really) can cause; I need that with a partner. I also still have plushies as comfort animals and ideally, you do too.
Apparently in every relationship, one person is the stronger one. In the past, I have been with women who obviously were stronger than me, but that doesn't mean they always had to be strong, far from it. I certainly need to be able to feel protected, but it's not like I'm a particularly needy partner, like everyone, I have my ups and downs, but I can pull my weight and have been told by past partners that I am very caring and that they felt safe and understood with me, and providing that for my partner is really important for me as well.
Second, intimate compatibility. I am rather insatiable and love to experiment when it comes to the bedroom, so you should, too, in order that we can explore and enjoy together. I found out how fulfilling living out those fantasies can be after years of never being able to try and in a relationship, this kind of fulfillment for both partners is a must for me. I found the term 'filthy best friends and partners' to be a perfect description.
I'm looking for a balance between healthy independence and being emotionally present. A relationship where we 'get' each other; we're both each other's number one and treat each other like royalty. Where a disagreement leads to more intimacy between us as we understand better, not to resentment. Where we're comfortable baring our souls to each other, becoming a safe haven and secure base for each other. I don't like the modern notion that you 'should never feel too safe in a relationship' because that sounds like running from the mafia (and believe me, I love mafia movies); you should always put in effort, yes, but safety is one of the things I always want to experience and provide in a relationship. We shouldn't fear that a disagreement leads straight to breakup. I know ‘self-sufficiency’ is trending right now, but I feel like as partners, we’re partly responsible for each other and not our own but also each other’s happiness. Being dependant and dependable at the same time is important; making each other’s wellbeing a priority. If you’re not able to healthily depend on someone and their support while you’re having a hard time, look elsewhere. If I have to be afraid you’ll run at the first major problem that surfaces, even if it’s a ‘you’-problem, it’s not going to work. I think that all things can and need to be talked about. If you think ignoring someone for days is a form of communication, please look elsewhere.
I am looking for someone real. We all have our problems, I don't want or need a 'perfect' person. You don't have everything figured out or 'all your shit' together. Be imperfect. Admit when you feel sad and angry, lonely, hopeless or even helpless – it's all relatable. Don't hide it. Be quirky, be dorky, be witchy, opinionated, be yourself. Don't pretend.
I'm looking for someone to share romance with. Not great gestures, but small, meaningful ones. Poems for each other, expressing our feelings; cards with heartfelt messages that we put our perfume/cologne on, and a symbol that means something to us only, the print of your lips with lipstick, the way I sign and seal my letters for you.
Just as important to me is agreeing on living a healthy life, staying in shape both for ourselves and for each other, regularly working out and eating healthy. I am drug and disease-free and expect the same of you. I do drink as I love a good beer or glass of wine, rum or whiskey, but I've never really been drinking much and especially during the past year have further reduced it. One vice I have is that I enjoy a couple of cigars a year, but I can definitely accommodate you in this regard.
Another important point is aligned life goals: I value safety more than adventure. I want to build a home together with my partner, a safespace for the both of us, where we always feel loved and protected, a place that we create together, make it cozy together so we just love to get back home there wherever we might have been, a home we decorate together for Halloween (my favourite holiday) or Christmas or Springtime, as we live in tune with the seasons, enjoying nature on a walk or the rain outside, reading in our cozy home. I value stability and harmony.
Appearance-wise, I am into ladies on the smaller side), so I'm looking for someone petite/slim/skinny/healthy-fit. Likewise, I am not really muscular and don't have visible abs; like I said, I'm a runner, so if you're more into the gym-type, I'm not a good fit.
I’d prefer to move from text to voice calls, videochat and then meeting up, all of that rather sooner than later. Not that there’s a need to rush anything, but I’d rather see earlier if we’re compatible or not; as someone who catches feelings fast I need to protect myself.
Caveats

• I don't like travelling as it stresses me out; I don't mind being somewhere else for a week or two, but the organisation part of it drains my energy very quickly and dealing with stuff that doesn't work out is overwhelming to me. Smaller trips are ok, but I'm not the right person to travel the world with.
• I am not the most awake person in the morning (i.e. I identify as nightowl)
• I don't want children and had a vasectomy
• I need space for my own projects/time to recharge after social interaction.
• While I feel like I am in tune with my inner child and working on/with it through therapy, I realise this is something that could be a turn-off for people.
• I have been diagnosed with depressive episodes in the past and am taking anti-depressants right now. I realise that I am a work in progress, maybe more so than in times past, but I manage and the fact that I'm putting myself out here is based on me being ready to get to know someone new.
• I want to create a home together here, as I'm firmly rooted where I was born; I realise this is a lot to ask, but I have seen many people here being open to moving, so I want to at least try reaching out to them.

If you're interested, feel free to message me and include some pictures of yourself and I will reply with my own. Have a nice day (:

We've been together for 7 years now. The fight itself stemmed from long term problems but was a small thing, ultimately. I have really serious trauma history and can sometimes project the feelings of neglect and abandonment I experienced on others. I'm pretty much always working on this, but it's also a reality of life currently. I was playing a co-op game with him and some friend when I had technical issues that made enjoying the game and communicating impossible. I asked my partner for help but from my perspective they were cold and short with me and not tolerant of my frustration and confusion when troubleshooting. From their perspective I was mean and didn't accept their help. Ultimately when I talked to my brother about it he reminded me that I should have helped my self and taken initiative for myself and that's most healthy. But I got upset and felt like he was abandoning me and having fun without caring about me so I froze and stopped playing before leaving entirely to go cry alone in another room.
After the game ended he came in, but from the outside of the door I heard him say "oh God not again" and he came in and asked if I was okay. Then when I said no and started talking about how I was feeling he berated me for supposedly not wanting to tell him anyway and tried to make an exit. I could tell he didn't want to be there but made the mistake of pining for his emotional validation and support anyway. He told me later that he would only have been able to do that if what I was upset about was something less hurtful than warped projections onto him. Since he was just trying to get through the game and give me space to advocate for myself. We've also talked on the past about not bringing these kinds of emotions to him. Yet I partially feel since I was mid meltdown by myself *trying* to regulate and he came in and tried to help but then became agitated, that he really should have stayed away!! Or left respectfully!! But he started arguing with me, and I just kept getting more upset and crying and accusing him of not loving me like he used to. When things escalated to shouting he got in my face. When I his opinion, I got too loud, he ran at me and grabbed my body and restrained it while placing his hand over my mouth to shut me up. I fought him off me and it took strength and screamed not to touch me!?! Ultimately we shouted until he ran out of the house and didn't come back for 6 hours.
During that time I called my brother and tried to make sense of it all. I realized I had done wrong and betrayed my commitment to not put my anxieties about him abandoning me on his plate and should of kept it all to myself. I reflected on my partners condition lately, which is very poor as he is depressed and recently fired. He has gained dramatic weight over the last 3 years and is basically miserable lately. Both the external world and our relationship have been sour for us leading to constant arguing.
The next day we reconciled and I was upset he wasn't immediately remorseful for grabbing me because it was serious. He said he doesn't think guilt or remorse are useful, only punitive. It's important to me though, I don't know if that's wrong. So I told him I didn't forgive him and asked if he even wanted me to forgive him. He said yes and asked me to be more specific about what showing remorse meant to me. I asked that he sit next to me and held my hands. I told him to say "I'm sorry. I crossed a line I should never cross and hurt you. I will never do anything like this ever again. I betrayed your trust." And he did and it seemed genuine but he also felt the need to keep bringing up why he thought in the moment it was ok to do. He said our roommate said we had been noisy lately so he did "for me" knowing it worries me to upset my roommate. I told him it was ridiculous to say it was for me, even if that was his reasoning and that I would never grab him to make him quiet.
I forgave him, and I think I really do but I want this to never happen again. We made new plans on how to interact when I'm processing big feelings that aren't best shared with him. I'm also making new plans to intervene in my mental and physical health to just take better care of myself to further prove personal responsibility for my own issues. He told me he didn't want to have any more sex for a while because of the seriousness of my accusations (that it was an assault against my physical autonomy) and that we would sleep in separate places and get space. I agreed but it's very bittersweet. The space helps me too but I'm also so sad and the gap between us is suddenly so wide. How do couples who have hurt each other build new understanding, love , and peace? Please, all I want is that.

My understanding is that vitamin B9 impacts the process of DNA methylation. And that this process has to do with genes getting "turned on and off"; it's epigenetics. If you have dysregulated or messed-up DNA methylation then, genes are getting "turned on and off" in a harmful and disorganized way throughout your body, correct?
But what does this really mean and how does this actually play out? I would love to read something about that topic.
Is DNA methylation happening on a very rapid "timescale" such that taking a vitamin-B9 supplement could induce (within, say, 1 minute? or 5 minutes?) changes in the methylation process that would cause actual changes in your body? What changes in your body could occur within 1 minute...or 5 minutes or 10 minutes or 30 minutes...through changes in the process of DNA methylation?
If you take a vitamin-B9 pill and then (after a few minutes) your GI system makes some noises and becomes more active, is it possible that those noises and that activity are related to DNA methylation? Or could DNA methylation never induce the noises and the activity?
See here:
https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/ben/cdm/2005/00000006/00000001/art00006

Advances in molecular biology greatly contributed, in the past decades, to a deeper understanding of the role of gene function in disease development. Environmental as well as nutritional factors are now well acknowledged to interact with the individual genetic background for the development of several diseases, including cancer, cardiovascular disease, and neurodegenerative diseases. The precise mechanisms of such gene-nutrient interactions, however, are not fully elucidated yet. Many micronutrients and vitamins are crucial in regulating mechanisms of DNA metabolism. Indeed, folate has been most extensively investigated for its unique function as mediator for the transfer of one-carbon moieties for nucleotide synthesis / repair and biological methylation. Cell culture, animal, and human studies, clearly demonstrated that folate deficiency induces disruption of DNA synthesis / repair pathways as well as DNA methylation anomalies. Remarkably, a gene-nutrient interaction between folate status and a polymorphism in methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase gene has been reported to modulate genomic DNA methylation. This observation suggests that the interaction between a nutritional status and a mutant genotype may modulate gene expression through DNA methylation, especially when such polymorphism affects a key enzyme in one-carbon metabolism and limits the methyl supply. DNA methylation, both genome-wide and gene-specific, is of particular interest for the study of aging, cancer, and other pathologic conditions, because it affects gene expression without permanent alterations in the DNA sequence such as mutations or allele deletions. Understanding the patterns of DNA methylation through the interaction with nutrients is a critical issue, not only to provide pathophysiological explanations of a disease state, but also to identify individuals at-risk to conduct targeted diet-based interventions.

I think we tend to think of genetics as this immutable thing and therefore we would be surprised if the process of DNA methylation could induce changes in our bodies within 1 or 5 or 10 or 30 minutes.

LTV believers made a huge mistake by thinking that the value is created in the market, value need to have a demand firstly then it would be created by "labor". Even if we say that the stuff that made in the factory for sell are already created, they still have no value because there's no previous demand, your theory of labor value assume that the utility is an objective thing(which is impossible to say this because utility is a schedule that changes from time to time and from a use to another) so whenever the labor goes through a thing it creates a new "value". However marxist try to get out of the circle of the mudpies they get back to it.