klasp100
Any thoughts on a LinkedIn profile? I am an autodidact web developer in the making. I deactivated my Facebook, it was a decent profile, gave me a nice image, but I've always hated social media. I'm seeing everywhere that not having one might be a small red flag for employers. I would like to hear from you guys, not the simps who are balls deep in the rat race.
@Fawk_Face Alright I"ll give it a second thought. About Facebook, precisely my feeling. Just had it for a long time, but it was starting to get on my nerves. Thanks for input
@klasp100 if you’re making a LinkedIn to impress employers you’re already “balls deep in the rat race.” Just sayin.
Best way to get interviews is through people you actually know. That said LinkedIn recruiters hit me up weekly just because Ive displayed programming projects and experience. It’s easy to get interviews that way as well.
I got my current job on either Glassdoor or indeed. Those are good sites to shotgun out a couple hundred resumes and hope you get lucky.
@neo Yea I hate the feeling with these platforms, especially since it puts you in a rat-race mindset. That's why I tried to avoid LinkedIn up until now. I have friends graduating in engineering who might help me out with contacts. Or just get some initial clients through my local areas and then word of mouth can keep the snowball growing. I was thinking of LinkedIn just the way you described, show off projects, like a deluxe C.V. I will also look at local job boards, similar to Indeed, but for my local area. Thanks for input <a href="https://www.forums.red/u/neo" onclick="event.stopPropagation();">@neo_, I don't check on here too often, just once in a while.
@carnold03 Yea I was also thinking of muay thai like @SwallowMyPill. Plus, the boxing gyms where I am at are commercial mostly. I'd rather study an "inferior" combat martial art but at a more serious gym. Most trainers expect people to be pussies and are afraid of making them quit if they are too thorough.
I've been frequenting TheFastlaneForum for a while. What are your thoughts? It seems like a gem to me for the most part. Any of you in there?
Homosexuality is, in my view, primarily a symptom of gender trauma.
Sounds to me like the writer has gotten original sin and other religious dogma twisted in with his views on human sexuality. I wonder what his peer reviews would look like written by a body of psychologists versus a body of priests?
Outcomes like this are part of why our Founding Fathers wisely firewalled church and state.
Seems more likely you skimmed the excerpt. As far as I can tell Dr. Nicolosi makes no mention of faith or sin in his essay The Traumatic Foundation of Male Homosexuality and is consistent in his clinical focus on male psychology and sexual trauma. However, you can contact Dr. Nicolosi here if you want to discuss the matter in greater detail or get more insight into his services and religious views.
Further, it seems like you misunderstand the concept of sin as understood by Christians or at least as it's understood among properly informed Catholics. While his expressed view is consistent with Christian doctrine on the sixth commandment, Homosexuality isn't a mortal sin. As it's a form of fornication, it is a venial sin. One which an individual who suffers with can, with god's help through prayer, close support, sincerity, and determination through correction can repent and overcome.
I imagine in some circles it's seen as hokey, but we aren't supposed to see you as damned to hell for it if your sincere in your penitence. Since you brought up the religious point, I'll provide you with a link to the Catechism summary on chastity and homosexuality. Do a search for paragraph "2357" minus the quotes. The following are sources for this summary:
As for as the matter of separation of church and state, the late U.S. Supreme court justice Antonin Scalia has spoken repeatedly on the matter, here's a short clip for consideration.
cc: @klasp100 @adam-l @Aging-Chad
Read More![](https://www.trp.red/ogcache.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.crisismagazine.com%2Fwp-content%2Fthesis%2Fskins%2Fcrisismag%2Fimages%2FCrisis-avatar2.jpg)
@Aging-Chad They do want you to show your real emotions. Women want to QUICKLY be able to pose a value judgement on your SMV before they invest in a relationship with you. She is risking her pair-bonding apparatus and giving birth to an unworthy seed. It's for her own advantage, but there is a way of being vulnerable and coming out on top.
By Making a man show his true emotions, she can tell how strong he really is. You can cry in front of her, but the way you cry and what caused it to happen matter. There is such a thing as man-tears. Crying through your eyes, without letting the entire emotion come out on your face. You can show emotion without succumbing to the comfort of victimhood.
Another important thing, monitor her reaction if she ever sees you crying for some reason. If you can taste disrespect in her reaction, that should honestly make you angry and you should put her back in her place. That is a free opportunity for 1) being your true self 2) asserting masculine authority, which will turn her on.
This goes without saying, you shouldn't cry in front of a girl whom you've been seeing for 3 months. After the one-year mark it changes.
You should always maintain control of your emotions, but that doesn't mean you should hide them. You can show those emotions that you are keeping under control. Women aren't necessarily attracted to a man who can't be vulnerable, they are repulsed by indulgence in victimhood. Not the same.
You all know about the AF/BB duality. Her ideal mate satisfies both at once. Part of being a good provider/protector is being able to be vulnerable enough to be sensitive to what she needs. And possible what your offspring will need. Doesn't mean being a fucking pussy. It means being sensitive, but giving in to weakness. A girl won't feel ecstatic raise a 10-children family with an AF who doesn't have any parental qualities. She will be ecstatic to be fucked by him in the club, but she doesn't see herself being at a table with 10 of her children and him as their father. Because he would likely be a bad father or just leave.
Read More@Aging-Chad A thing that seems to weird me out from most red pill thinking, is the omission that humans have evolved for a very large brain, and so a females pregnancy is extremely risky because of this. Humans are born under-developed because so much energy is sapped into brain development, and female hips need to be much larger because of that damn head.
The AF/BB duality seems to be only explored in binary. From my experience with girls, and from what I have seen in others, it seems the guys who are the most attractive to girls, and especially to the most attractive girls, are the guys who have sufficient qualities in both pure masculinity and parental qualities. I think provider is a subset of parental ability, parental ability being the parent category. Parental ability is important if she has sons and daughters, because for a girl to remain feminine she needs a strong masculine father figure, but a pure AF isn't worth shit as a father. A son would need the same. If you fuck the AF and raise them with the BB, your children get a shit father who can only pay bills. If you get man who is a bit less overly masculine, but he is still strong and masculine, he will help raise quality offspring. And as a father I believe you only need one quality day per week with your children to give them a proper influence. The rest of the week can be taken by their mother. So it doesn't imply your a babysitter. You just need to be present enough to let that influence seep into their character.
The girls with the best hip-to-waist ratios are rarely hoes to random AFs. Maybe girls with nice fit bodies, a bubble butt and with nice facial features hoe themselves out, but girls who have the best hip-to-waist often don't, because that is a proxy for femininity, and the most feminine girls prefer the guy who is a little less alpha, but a capable parent. They want a guy to give them as much children as possible and to help raise them. They also typically have lower body counts because their feminine instincts are so strong to tell them that being a hoe devalues her.
There were studies that confirmed that hip-to-waist ratio indicated differences in girls preferring high-status men for longer relationships over alpha body types for short lays. Girls with ideal H-to-W were less prone to ONS and were less attracted to ultra-masculine phenotypes. Girls with less than ideal H-to-W (even if they are hot/beautiful otherwise) tended to go for more alpha dudes for ONS more than not.
Maybe that is why some of us fall here. We wanted to get the feminine baby momma type of girl when we were younger, but weren't valuable enough. Then, we see other girls fucking a bunch of dudes and assume only being more alpha will bring us that. We work on ourselves to become more masculine, develop our warrior spirit. Then we mistake this essential part as something way too important, and we forget the qualities that would make us a man who would raise strong sons and feminine and graceful daughters. Then we wonder why all the girls are all fucking sluts. Because by neglecting parental qualities you are not getting access to the most feminine girls. You only get the less feminine ones (even if they're smacking hot). And her ass isn't a proxy for femininity. Her hips and waist are.
Jesus this was fucking long
Read More@Aging-Chad That's exactly right. That's the best thing to do: compliment her on her competence and enthusiasm when pleasing you and serving you.