StringJunky

I sensed no aggression; just pointed and direct.

That's a different kettle of fish.

That was the solution I came across for it reading around. Glad to hear it works.

Do you snore or know that you suffer from apnoea (amer, apnea)? I would suspect obstructed breathing.

It was a perfect storm of events for this to happen and I blame nobody. As I said before: shit happens..

Ah Michel! <blushes> you are... It could be..... Funky and funny!

Yes,being told not to do something is not the same as understanding why; they are going to find out the hard way sometimes. A 4 year old is the exact age I would expect to do that; they are old enough to get in to trouble but not necessarily fully self-aware yet as to the possible consequences of their actions.

I understand your approach and I normally adhere to it elsewhere but I think the subjective element i.e. correlating the measured signal with what is experienced subjectively, is important in this field. I'm happy for you to chuck the minutiae at me; I am interested in biopsychology* as a passing interest. * Biopsychology is a branch of psychology that analyzes how the brain and neurotransmitters influence our behaviors, thoughts and feelings. This field can be thought of as a combination of basic psychology and neuroscience.

I appreciate your openness. Kudos. I think fat tissue is a fair proportion of breast mass so working out that area will hit the size of them. When you stop training they'll likely resume to how they were. Being realistic, how many big-bosomed and muscular women do you see around; not surgically augmented? If you want the muscular physique I think it goes with the territory/activity that your boobs will get smaller; look at the Olympic swimmers and, in fact, any seriously competitive female athlete: Swimmer Alicia Coutts is pretty typical I honestly don't think, for the majority of guys that they are an arbiter of whether they fancy you or not; not ones worth knowing anyway. I think you may be experiencing confirmation bias. Example: you are likely thinking: "He likes her because she's got big boobs". I bet you are also subconsciously ignoring (confirmation bias) all the other guys with girls that have less there because you want to confirm what you think, that small-breasted women don't get the guys; making you feel inadequate. Fact: Not all men prefer big boobs; This is besides the fact that I don't think they rate terribly highly on any worthwhile-man's list of priorities. I honestly think your current lack of self-confidence is just from a lack of experience dating. It doesn't matter how old you are it's a nerve-wracking exercise the first time. Take it one step at a time; just talk to the guys as people and don't look at them as potential partners. That way you aren't putting pressure on yourself and it will happen if you relax and just be yourself. In time, with practice just generally socialising, you'll eventually feel more confident to be assertive towards those you do want to home in on. Back to your OP: given that you are naturally sufficiently endowed breast-wise normally, I would forget about any kind of enhancement because they will come back when you move on from your current lifestyle/activitity to a more sedate one. Enjoy being as you are now; fitter and more athletic. The boobs can wait; you know they are already there. You can't be all things to all people; stop trying and just focus on fitting into the social niche you feel comfortable in. I hope this, and other contributions here, helps put things in a truer perspective for you.

I concur. I'm sure the zoo will be ruminating on the lessons learned, especially in the light of all the attention.

Of course, objectively. The same could be said about your objectively measured conscious analytical processes; measuring is not being i.e. subjective. The interpretations from both perspectives will be different. Let's face it, the technology is not there yet.

I should stress that this is my own opinion. I think it is important not to read so much into the narrative or content of the dreams as much as how it makes you feel having experienced it. Carrying reading and posting as you do, you are doing fine.

They were damned whatever way they decided. They had to put the boy first. I'm sure the zoo staff involved are pretty upset. C'est la vie (sh*t happens)

'Logic' does not mean: that which makes sense to me. Nature can be very contrary to that and scientists understand that.

Here, have a bigger spade... I am at loss as to why you continue.

LOL

Science is the discipline of objectively describing nature.

But you'll still end up as pancaked tomato sauce, for a fraction of second

Exactly the same neural apparatus are used for dreams as for waking life. Why should dreams automatically be assumed to be self-delusion; are our waking thoughts self-delusion? Is our brain not capable of coherent data streams when we are not consciously active; I think so. I think the mode of operation and internal language(s) may be different in that state though. Yes, it is interesting and I think it's necessary from a survival perspective that the sleeping brain keeps tabs on the external environment via the senses; it is, after all, sharing the same gear to make the dreams and keep tabs. It's not surprising, imo, that sensory data has an effect on dream output. It seems to me that the brain makes caricatures of people or events as a means of emphasis, the degree of grotesqueness or exaggeration depending on how intensely one is disturbed by particular memories, anxieties, fears or people. The net result I think is to attempt to correct or level out emotional disequilibrium. If you are too happy in waking life the dreams could well be bad as well as vice versa when you are unhappy..

Feral ones at that.

If it's some feature that you've been very unhappy about it to the point of making you frequently miserable for a very long time and people have ridiculed you over it, if the risk is low, do it. I can empathise, for example, if a woman has a flat chest (or too big) or a man or woman has a nose significantly out of proportion with their face or misshapen. It's hard to say where t6o draw the line between what is genuinely therapeutic psychologically and that which most people would say "His/her <insert feature> is OK".

Yes. The scientific method is the agreed methodology that brings unity and peer review is the agreed form of dissent.

It's steely cold, strongly unified with plenty of room for dissent; yours is a false dichotomy.

Isn't that all that really matters - to us - when the lights go out for the final time?