u/ConTrikster

I’ve always wondered what exactly classified an addiction

More specifically does it exist to be a high functioning addict to where it hasn’t caused any progression based issues in the years you’ve maybe dealt with it.

I do believe I have some sort of sex/porn/prostitute addiction. But, I have had good quality regular relationships with women. I don’t blow all my money on sex workers, as I have a life in which I dont want to go broke from the sex workers, because to me having fun with friends and family or the women I date is far more important. I make sure to get tested regularly and don’t have any STD’s. I don’t blow off major responsibilities to go sleep with regular women, sex workers, or watch porn. I will say though i am sure to only pair with higher sex drive women. The way I date does reflect that. Whether or not that’s an issue is up for interpretation cause don’t want to commit to someone with a vanilla sex drive and I do have a general frequency I seek out.

I could go a week or 2 without watching porn or weeks/month(s) without seeing a sex worker. I can go on a dating site, or warm approach women and have had meaningful relationships and fwb relationships.

I guess it gets to a point where I’m not stopping cause…there hasn’t been a need to? Which I think may be a trap, in a way. Like I guess what stops me from going overboard is I have no desire to deal with the despair that comes with over-consumption.

TL;DR- I am currently receiving a large sum of money. I haven't told my gf about the exact amount yet, but she currently knows I have quite a bit. I refuse to get married without a prenup and she is upset. Need help going forward.

I (26M) have been with my gf (25F) on and off for about a year and some change. Marriage is on the table soon as we have discussed. I have been in the steady process of receiving a large sum of money. Let's just say it's more than enough for me to know I will be getting a prenup and there will be no discussion that's changes my mind otherwise. Only thing that I will discuss is making sure the prenup is fair for both parties.

I did go ahead and tell her about the money (not exact amount yet) as I would have to be honesty about my finances before marriage and the signing of the prenup. I did not want to string this on her after getting engaged to
her.

Of course she is not on board and doesn't want to sign one because she said it should be about love. She shouldn't have to be signing documents about it. I told her we are already signing a document to the state with marriage in general, and that there is nothing wrong with signing a document that protects the both of us. I did tell her that the decision of the prenup itself is not a negotiation, and there will have to be one or we won't be getting married, but I will pay for her lawyer (of her choice) to ensure it is as fair as possible.

The plan is keeping everything we came in with separate.
The money will garner returns during the marriage and I have told her the interest, gains, etc (yes it's that much to where I will be having livable gains from it from years to come without touching principal) will be something i consider to be marriage property and will split with her during and if the marriage ends. Also assets would be the same way during the marriage. Also I legally cannot waive child support so she'd get that as well (this was brought up by her). This was apparently not enough but I find this more than fair.

I don't know what else to say to her other than we are not getting married because I will not force her to sign it but not signing does mean there will not be a marriage. I guess I need y'all's help to figure out the best way to explain things to her and what I can do going forwards. She still wants to proceed with marriage.

TL;DR- I am currently receiving a large sum of money. I haven’t told my gf about the exact amount yet, but she currently knows I have quite a bit. I refuse to get married without a prenup and she is upset. AITAH?

I (26M) have been with my gf(25F) on and off for about a year and some change. Marriage is on the table soon as we have discussed. I have been in the steady process of recovering a large sum of money. Let's just say it's more than enough for me to know I will be getting a prenup and there will be no discussion that's changes my mind otherwise. Only thing that I will discuss is making sure the prenup is fair for both parties.

I did go ahead and tell her about the money (not exact amount yet) as I would have to be honesty about my finances before marriage and the signing of the prenup. I did not want to string this on her after getting engaged to her.

Of course she is not on board and doesn't want to sign one because she said it should be about love. She shouldn't have to be signing documents about it. I told her we are already signing a document to the state with marriage in general, and that there is nothing wrong with signing a document that protects the both of us. I did tell her that the decision of the prenup itself is not a negotiation, and there will have to be one or we won't be getting married, but I will pay for her lawyer to ensure it is as fair as possible.

The plan is keeping everything we came in with separate.
The money will garner returns durring the marriage and I have told her the interest, gains, etc (yes it's that much to where I will be having livable gains from it from years to come without touching principal) will be something i consider to be marriage property and will split with her during and if the marriage ends. Also assets would be the same way during the marriage. Also | legally cannot waive child support so she'd get that as well (this was brought up by her). This was apparently not enough but I find this more than fair.

I don't know what else to say to her other than we are not getting married because I will not force her to sign it but not signing does mean there will not be a marriage. I guess I need y'all's help to figure out the best way to explain things to her and what I can do going forwards. She still wants to proceed with marriage.

TL;DR- The flood/precursors are just so advanced their concept of life and death aren’t the same as forerunners or humans. The flood was just a reflection of the galaxy’s judgment.

People always talk about the Flood like they’re just space zombies or a parasite gone wrong, but I honestly think the Flood are something much deeper: the judgment/reflection of the galaxy itself through the Precursors. The Precursors were originally life-seeders, gardeners, and creators. We’ve literally seen examples in Halo lore of Precursor remnants connected to healing, growth, plant life, and restoring ecosystems. There’s even that story where a woman’s illness was healed through Precursor influence and choice rather than domination. To me, that implies the Precursors were never inherently malicious. Their “dust” or remnants could express themselves positively or negatively depending on the state of the galaxy around them.

That’s why I think the Forerunners genocide against the Precursors is the key to understanding the Flood. The Forerunners answered fear with annihilation and rejected the Precursors’ philosophy of stewardship. So the Flood became a reflection of that hatred and violence. The Primordial constantly talks about suffering, unity, failure, and judgment in philosophical terms, not like a normal hive-mind parasite. The Flood doesn’t just consume bodies; it absorbs civilizations, memories, emotions, and pain. It acts less like a disease and more like a cosmic mirror. The galaxy projected extermination, domination, and endless war outward, and the Flood reflected it back at them in its most horrifying form.

So my theory is that the Flood is only one manifestation of the Precursors, specifically the manifestation created by a galaxy consumed by fear, genocide, and conflict. In a healthier galaxy, Precursor remnants may have remained peaceful seeders of life instead of becoming the Flood. That would explain why some lore points toward restorative or life-giving Precursor influence while other parts show cosmic horror beyond comprehension. The Flood isn’t just “evil”; it’s the shadow side of the Mantle itself — a living judgment formed from the state of galactic civilization.

The precursors were beyond space and time, have evolved and devolved, lived advanced and primitive, etc. So I don’t think they have the same concept of life and death as the forerunners. The precursors had literally almost no reason to need to fight back in the traditional sense. Their punishment “fight” was always more metaphorical/ a lesson for the galaxy. Whoever “passed” had right to the mantle

Did I get that right?