I've actually become hooked on a drink I made up myself, that I call cofftea. I pour about a third of a cup of regular coffee ( like columbian at the moment), fill up the (extra tall) mug with plain water, then add a Red Rose tea bag, and microwave it for a minute and a half.

Add some French Vanilla creamer to smooth it all together, and sip luxuriously.

Actually, EACH person can read your body language differently, because context matters every bit as much in NON verbal communication as it does for verbal communication.

A single woman in a public area, IS IN A DIFFERENT CONTEXT than even a single woman in a different location. And the context is different for a married person in the same location as they would be should they NOT be married.

Your very same actions will MEAN something entirely different to another person, depending on the exact context.

This is why the concept of MANNERS was invented and cultivated. To provide us with as complete of a verbal AND NONVERBAL vocabulary as is necessary to allow us all to interact without confusion or threat.

I personally don't care who's on here, as far as their ideas about who gets to do what with whom, as long as they obey the rule of the site, and show respect for others.

Frankly, someone who claims to be in an "open marriage" is functionally the same to me as someone who is looking for any number of other kinds of people that are nothing like me.

Just my overall sense of things with this.
From observations and some direct experiences, I've seen that one of the things that causes all sorts of law enforcement and protective peoples to be very frustrated, is that mass media and even "social media" attempts to persuade people to behave safely and cautiously, are all but ignored.

So I don't think your concern about sensationalized media or social media chat is warranted.

What I do know well, again from direct experience, is that TONS of people who strike up conversations out of nowhere, may not be particularly dangerous, but they are all too often just mentally off enough, that they either get angry when I don't respond exactly how they desire, or are looking to attach themselves to me like emotional or social leeches, and interrupt and generally derail my day.

I also, as a part of my job, interact with casual strangers constantly, so being able to "chat" pleasantly is often an important thing to do.

As MsHarmony mentioned, I watch out for people showing polite disinterest, more than anything else, and tailor my "chat" to allow them to disengage as easily and quickly and cheerfully as they may wish to.

Also a BIG thing to NOT do, is do NOT change your apparent course, in order to parallel the stranger. If you are saying something in passing, then for goodness sakes, PASS!!!!! Do NOT stop and linger the moment they respond.

And if you have them accidentally trapped, such as you are both in an elevator, or both on a bus or subway for a while, allow plenty of space between friendly chat statements. If the stranger responds, but doesn't add a continuation comment or question, do NOT press for further "chat."

And very important, be aware of your SOCIAL DISTANCE. I hope you have an automatic good sense of this by your age, but some people never get that in every situation, there is a measurable and DIFFERENT distance to maintain with strangers. Fastest way to get someone upset with you, is to be too close for the circumstances. The AMOUNT of social distance varies according to how much distance is available, in many cases. Classic example, if there are a dozen open chairs in a waiting area, and only you and one other person waiting, do NOT choose the one right next to them, especially not if it puts you between the person and the door. You'll come across as fencing them in.

If you are walking, again, do NOT take up a position relative to them which would more rightly belong to an arranged companion, just because you are going the same way. If the environment is noisy, make up for that by raising your volume and listening more carefully; don't "fix it" by speaking into their ear.

That kind of stuff.

Not sure what the language difference is here, since I have no idea where "BG" is.

But anyway, the way to meet and "marriage" anyone or any thing here (ebony is a thing, not a person) is exactly the same.

Look them up via searches, send them a message, and hope that they like your looks enough to respond.

Actually, in a way, yes, in another way, no.

If you first remember that love predates marriage, and that marriage in turn predates FORMAL LEGAL MARRIAGE laws.

What I mean is, that love without the support of personal principles of caring and continuous dedication, isn't really the sort of "love" that most people think well of.

So if you exchange the word "marriage," for something longer and functionally descriptive, such as "serious dedication and devotion to each other's lives," then I think you've got it.

Well, no, I don't think all religions are dangerous at all.

Especially in that, historically, most of them were begun specifically as an effort to try to help each other get through life as successfully as possible.

The trick with all "this is a good idea" concepts, is in what individuals end up trying to do with them. What starts out as a suggestion, can turn into marching orders. Blessings turn into magic spells, and shortcuts to peace and cooperation are turned by over-eager people into oppressions.

Not if I have anything to say about it!!!!

Hmmm.... Which I don't, so I guess there will be.

Hope I actually get to see it. The local weather here actually consciously plots to arrange heavy cloud cover in most instances like this.

In my experience, happiness occurs whenever someone gets the sense that they are who, and what and where they expect to be, doing and experiencing what most confirms their sense of how the world and existence works.

That's how some people are happy when some unpleasant things happen: because they believe that that's what was "supposed to" happen. NOT because it was unpleasant.

It's also why some people are UNHAPPY about some very positive experiences: they feel strongly that those things were NOT "supposed to happen."

The main thing I would worry about, is that traveling across country in a camper can be a lot like going into outer space with someone. Once you're away from home, the only way back should company prove "fatiguing," is a VERY expensive Uber ride.

I've been on long trips with people, and it IS more like marriage than we would like it to be, because we ARE isolated once we get underway.

Yeah, it does sound very strange.

I especially wonder what you mean by "unfinished inside." Is it really JUST bare concrete walls, two stories high? Is the bathroom fully functional?
Does it have real floors, or just concrete again? Are there cabinets in the kitchen, or just a couple of pipes sticking out where a sink can be added?

A solid masonry construction CAN be very positive, very valuable. Not if it's literally bare concrete, though. If it's brick faced concrete,so that it looks like something other than a prison from the outside, that's not too bad.

But completing the interior of an "unfinished" house can be VERY costly, especially if you aren't going to do it yourself.

Wait, there's only ONE BATHROOM, FOR FOUR BEDROOMS??!!???

BIG yikes.

Something to think about, that is within the formation of your question itself.

You ask if "love" needs sex to "prove it."

Think about that a bit more. Is "love" a creature? A person? A thinking entity which CAN require proof of something?

I would suggest not.

What you have mixed up in how you asked the question, is who or what is looking for proof. It isn't love, that's the emotion, or the perception.

The PERSON who does or doesn't love, is who could be searching for "proof."

By asking this question incorrectly, you've caused your own confusion.

The correct way to ask, might have been to ask OF the people who are concerned about whether or not they feel love: do THEY need to have sex, before they believe that they feel love?

I still remember well, when I was a child in what used to be called Grammar school (it was already called Elementary by the time I got there), how a teacher began one lesson by writing this in large letters on the blackboard:

"GHOTI"

She then asked if anyone knew this "word," and what it meant. I remember being too cautious to answer, but wondering why the word for "small beard" would be spelled so oddly.

Turned out she was facetiously bringing to our consciousness, how "funny" English word spellings can be, due to the wide variety of ways we had to learn to pronounce letters and letter combinations.

The correct pronunciation of the word she'd written, was "FISH."

This was due to taking the way we pronounce the word "tough," and snipping off the GH at the end; taking the word "women," and using the way we pronounce the O in that, and finishing with taking the word "diction" (or any similar tion word), and using how we pronounce the "ti" in that.

Again, all due to our insistence on keeping SOME but not all old ways of writing things.

Another "fun" thing about English (again, no doubt not unique to it) is that we did completely discard SOME letters we used to have, altogether, yet left the remnants of them in word spellings, and thereby confusing later generations.

We used to have a letter that looked a lot like a modern capital Y, but which was pronounced like "TH" as used in "the." This is why you might see someone set up a sign saying "Ye Old Apothecary" or the like, and most people will actually say "yee" out loud when they read it. Not even the people who make that sign, often realize it should be pronounced "THE Old Apothecary," because that letter discard has been forgotten, while the words using it remain in our collective usage.

English is hard to learn in those and other ways, due to the complex history of the English people who built the language. It is assembled from multiple sources,just as the peoples of England are themselves the result of the intersection of conflicting groups colliding.

The one caution I want to give about this overall subject (which I have witnessed people debate for decades), is that although it is SEMANTICALLY correct that there CAN'T be such a thing as a "selfless act," since in order for an act to happen, there has to be a self...

that this does NOT in any way excuse anyone from refusing to work for the greater good.

It does NOT excuse selfISHness.

The single most common reason why I've seen people go on about how "selfless acts aren't really selfless," has been that they were jealous of, or annoyed by the praise that can get heaped on the few people who actually DO try to make a positive difference. (Note, assuredly NOT making any accusations about anyone here!!!)

And that's too bad, because when it comes down to the basic reality, if something very positive is done, by someone who gains (for example) only a small ego boost in exchange, that doesn't in anyway make the positive gains, negative.

As for myself, just like Ms Harmony and others here, I make it a point at every opportunity I have, to make the very small differences that I can make.

I stopped along with my brother once, when we were on vacation, driving across the midwest, and we together put out a would-be forest fire that was just getting started. Then we got back in the car and went on to Denver.

Every time it snows, I drive so that I can nibble away at any ice and snow patches that might cause trouble for others.

When I walk down a sidewalk, I watch for broken glass, and if I find any, I move it out of everyone else's path as best I can.

And so on.

Is any of it truly selfless? Hell no. I am convinced that if I make the world better, that I will enjoy the world a lot more. It's all for me.

Well, "National Animal" doesn't quite mean what most Americans are likely to think. We're used to things like "State Birds," which are typically actual birds that are indigenous to the state. "National Animal" in Scotland doesn't mean that they actually thought Unicorns roamed the fields and forests of old Caledonia. It has much more to do with political and other national symbology.

Oh, and I have been to Loch Ness, but the monster wasn't out in the yard playing that day. Bummer for me.

I disagree.

I've paid to see a number of plays, and found them very entertaining.

Especially a local performance of A Funny Thing Happened on the Way To The Forum.

I think partly that, but when it comes to actual arguments, a lot of people mix in other bad habits, and a bit of cheap combat strategy.

Many of the canned responses when people argue, especially about politics, are all about playing to their own "peanut gallery," rather than being about actually arguing anything. They aren't logical, because they aren't trying to BE logical.
They're just performing.

It's similar to the childhood thing, in that people are trying to please someone (fellow smart-mouths, as opposed to parents), and aren't actually thinking or listening to anything that's actually being discussed. They say what they do, especially the stuff that makes no sense at all, because they've seen other people say it, and heard their personal favorite audience laugh.

The places and times where such people apply cheap combat strategy, are such as purposely being rude and aggressive, where there's no call for that; and when they make it brutishly clear that they have no intention of behaving in a manner conducive to ACTUAL debate, and their opponent decides to apply their energies elsewhere, they pretend to themselves that they've "won" the argument.

And of course, if all else fails, they simply resort to a series of memorized "clever" insults, again designed entirely to signal their "comradeship" with fellow fanatics, and not to make ANY logical points of any kind.

It's the same basic idea, that they only care about the "candy," and not the principles or about whether or not their PROCESS makes any sense.

I've found to my disappointment and frustration, that pretty much all seers who are said to be accurate, are only accurate if you reinterpret what they say several times to "adjust" it to what you now think it means.

Nostradamus is more that way than most, because he wrote in "Quatrains," essentially poetry, using all sorts of alternate words and images to say whatever he was saying. Even when he does appear to have been right, the problem is, that we don't know until AFTER predicted events happen, that that was what he was talking about.

It isn't very useful to be told the future, if you still have to wait for it to arrive and pass, before you can understand the prediction.

I THINK he might be asking about FORGING friendships, and asking if anyone is here for that, as opposed to trying to find a mate to date.