How To Be A High Quality Male

Most guys resist the idea of becoming a "player." There's plenty of movies, and stories of guys that are labeled as "players" and then find "the one" only to get rejected because they are a "player."

However, the skills of a "player" are really the same skills you need to meet that one special girl. Which is perfect, since many guys aren't worried in about increasing their numbers.

They don't want notches on their bedposts, or tons of numbers on their list.

They're just looking for ONE special girl that will make life magic.

Absolutely NOTHING wrong with this. In fact, most guys would do well to forget about getting laid with as many girls as possible, and learn to find the ONE GIRL that will make everything easier.

But here's something to consider.

The very same skills that will allow some guys to walk up to any cute girl and talk her into bed within an hour or so are the SAME skills that will allow YOU to walk up to any girl, and simply talk to her for an hour or so to screen her to see if she may be THE ONE.

The truth is that for many guys, saying that they are waiting for "The One" is really an excuse to stay safely on the sidelines where there's no chance of rejection.

Almost every girl in the world, whether she be the type who ends up as notches in bedposts or she's ALSO waiting for "The One" isn't likely going to any approaching.

In fact, girls that likely fall into "The One" category in guys' minds (what most guys refer to as "High Quality Women") are much LESS likely to do any approaching.

Meaning that if you're looking for THE ONE, and not just an easy lay, you're going to be MORE SKILLS than guys who are just having one night stands.

And not just approaching skills. Conversation skills. Human skills. The ability to START CONVERSATIONS with people, and really listen. Find out what's important to them. Take responsibility for the direction of the conversation.

If you are looking for "The One," or a "High Quality Woman," then you've got to BE "The One," or a "High Quality Male."

The kind of guy who doesn't sit around and wait for things to happen. The kind of guy who makes things happen.

The Supreme Court Decisions on Same-Sex Marriage


The United States Supreme Court usually makes decisions that are in step with the thinking of American society as a whole, even if that society does not yet realize the implications of its own changing viewpoints. The Court adapts to most changes in society without being disruptive, reflecting changes over time and in line with majority opinion and thinking rather than forcing changes upon the nation.

The rules by which courts are governed control the relationship between higher and lower courts. The decision of a higher court controls the lower courts within its jurisdiction. This doctrine of precedent, called stare decisis, means that there will be consistently similar outcomes in similar cases. A court will deviate from its own prior decisions only when a departure would not upset settled expectations, the prior decision reflects judge-made law rather than a statute, and other courts have questioned the validity of the prior decision.

The Supreme Court's decisions about sex, race, and marriage have often been somewhat controversial when made, but ultimately the majority of people in the country quickly agree that they were correctly decided. Because sex and marriage are such intimate and personal issues, however, it is not until a new concept works its way through the courts that many of us think through the implications of a decision.

Controversial but ultimately widely-supported Supreme Court Decisions

Take, for example, the Supreme Court's cases that were somewhat shocking when made but which, once we had thought about it, most Americans supported. In Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the Court held unanimously that state laws establishing separate but equal schools based on race was inherently discriminatory. Today no one challenges this, though it took the U.S. Army and federal marshals to enforce it when originally decided.

Prior to the Brown decision, however, many other state and federal courts had worked through the issues and held that race discrimination was improper. Thus in Murray v. Maryland (1936), Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada (1938), Sweat v. Painter (1938), and McLaurin v. Oklahoma Board of Regents (1950), the Supreme Court and many lower courts had decided in a variety of contexts that having "separate but equal" educational systems was absurd and inherently unfair. Then-NAACP attorney and later Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall had spent decades building a national consensus that largely ensured that the majority of Americans were in agreement with the dismantling of American apartheid.

Moving from education to interpersonal relations, in Loving v. Virginia (1967), the Supreme Court unanimously held that Virginia's prohibition on interracial marriages was unconstitutional, ending all race-based legal restrictions in the country. But before the issue of interracial marriage got to the Supreme Court, there had been twenty-years of development of the issues, beginning with the California Supreme Court's decision in Perez v. Lippold (1948) that race-based regulation of marriage was unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. During those years many courts had dealt with the issue, so that by the time of the Supreme Court's decision a consensus was emerging throughout the country on the validity of segregation in America.

Roe v. Wade

However, in Roe v. Wade (1973) and its companion case Doe v. Bolton (1973), the Supreme Court created a new precedent that forced change for which the country was not ready by ruling that a federal constitutional right to privacy exists, and that this right to privacy gives a right to abortion. The result has been civil strife, with protests that have gone on unabated for forty years, and which bitterly divides America to this day. A key factor in the controversy was that the issues had not been fully developed in the lower courts and in society as a whole before they were decided by the Supreme Court.

The distinguishing feature of the Court's decisions in the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton cases that made them fundamentally different from the other cases it had decided on the subject of sex was that the Court went beyond ruling on the question before it, which was the constitutionality of extreme state anti-abortion statutes in Texas and Georgia. The Texas statute at issue criminalized assisting or advising a woman to get an abortion for any reason other than for saving the life of the mother. Georgia required that abortions be conducted in accredited hospitals, required approval by a hospital abortion committee and confirmation by other physicians, and limited abortion to Georgia residents.

By going far beyond what the American people thought necessary to decide those cases and declaring a fundamental constitutional right to abort a pregnancy, the Supreme Court adopted a medical approach to which much of society has remained hostile ever since. Decades after the decision, the issues are as controversial as they were when the Court decided that there was a constitutional right to abortion.

Back to incremental change

In contrast to the decision in Roe v. Wade in 1973, the Supreme Court made very limited rulings in the same-sex marriage cases that came before it in 2013. Chief Justice Roberts has long advocated restrained and incremental decision-making, using procedural devices to avoid contentious substantive decisions. The Court under this Chief Justice has directly overruled only three cases based upon the Constitution: Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm'n, 558 U.S. 310 (2010) (1st Amendment right to political speech), Montejo v. Louisiana, 556 U.S. 778 (2009) (5th Amendment rights in a criminal case), and Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder, 570 U.S. __ (2013) (federal approval of state voting procedures).

It should not have come as a big surprise, but nonetheless has done so, that in 2013 the Court issued extremely limited rulings on the subject of same-sex marriage, neither of which implicated the U.S. Constitution. Opponents of same-sex marriage seemed to let their fears get ahold of them, while advocates assumed that the logic of their arguments was unassailable and that same-sex marriage would be declared a fundamental right.

Hollingsworth v. Perry

In Hollingsworth v. Perry (2013), the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of the case, holding that the court of appeals and the Supreme Court itself lacked jurisdiction. The California Supreme Court had held that prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying violated the equal protection clause of the California Constitution. In response, the voters of California passed a constitutional amendment, called Proposition 8, to reinstate the ban. The California Supreme Court declared that amendment to be valid because same-sex couples could have domestic partnerships and thus had all of the benefits of marriage but without the name.

Two same-sex couples brought a federal lawsuit against the Governor, attorney general, and state and local officials in California, alleging that the prohibition on marriage in name and fact exactly equal to that of other married couples violated the U.S. Constitution. The state officials refused to defend the law, and the district court judge allowed interested parties to intervene as defendants, because California Constitution and state law permit the sponsors of initiatives to defend those initiatives in court if the state government refuses to do so.

Proposition 8 was struck down by the federal trial court, which held that Proposition 8 violated the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. After that decision, the state government completely stopped defending Proposition 8 - but a group that was a proponent of that amendment stepped in to defend the law. It was these sponsors who appealed to the 9th Circuit and ultimately to the Supreme Court.

The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision that Proposition 8 was unconstitutional, finding that it was enacted because of disapproval of same-sex couples as a class and that class-based distinction was prohibited by the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The United States Supreme Court decided to hear the case and review the decision of the court of appeals. The nation held its breath, and the blogosphere was full of dire predictions on both sides as to whether the Supreme Court would hold that same-sex couples were entitled to marriage, both in fact and name, and what that would mean for the traditional opposite-sex family unit consisting of one male and one female.

But the Supreme Court did not ultimately decide the merits of whether gay marriage should be declared to be a constitutional right, instead holding that the sponsors of Proposition 8 lacked standing in federal court to have appealed the district court's decision because they lacked any personal stake in the outcome. The U.S. Constitution requires a personal stake, and the California Constitution could not give the proponents of Proposition 8 standing in federal court.

Because the Supreme Court declared that there were not two proper parties before it to be heard, it affirmed the district court's decision. This is not at all the same as holding that there is a federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage, but instead allows the issue to be considered by lower courts, and either for a national consensus to develop or for development of the issues to the point at which a sharp split among the lower courts requires the Supreme Court's intervention.

United States v. Windsor

In 1996, Congress passed and President Clinton signed into law a bill called the Defense of Marriage Act, Public Law 104-199, and codified as 1 U.S.C. § 7. The facts of the case of United States v. Windsor (2013) related to whether that federal statute violated the U.S. Constitution by federalizing a state-law issue.

Edith Windsor was married and lived in New York state, which recognized her Canadian same-sex marriage to Thea Spyder. When Spyder died, she left her entire estate to Windsor. But because of the Defense of Marriage Act, the IRS could not recognize her marriage, even though New York State did so. The result was that Windsor had to pay more than a third of a million dollars in inheritance tax, which she would not have had to pay if the IRS had recognized her marriage. The U.S. District Court held that the prohibition of recognition of the valid state marriage by the federal government was unconstitutional.

Although the federal government, through the U.S. Attorney General, had decided not to defend the DOMA, the House of Representatives intervened and was represented by the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the House. The Department of Justice did not defend the law, but argued that it was unconstitutional. Unlike the California case, however, the intervening party was an entity of the United States House of Representatives and thus had standing. The Supreme Court held that the government's refusal to defend DOMA did not result in a lack of jurisdiction, unlike in the California case, because the government still refused refund Windsor's money despite its announcement of not defending the statute.

The court was presented with a situation in which the state accepted same-sex marriage for all purposes, but the federal government refused to recognize those same-sex marriages. Marriage has always been a function of state government, so domestic relations courts are always state courts. Federal laws and regulations do occasionally overrule a state's laws in some respects when federal interests are involved, such as where an immigrant seeks admission to the country or in determining whether a person qualifies for Social Security benefits.

The Court found that the marital status of same-sex couples was entitled to heightened scrutiny under Equal Protection clause, because distinguishing valid from invalid marriages based upon sexual orientation is inherently discriminatory. The majority opinion of the Supreme Court focused on the expressed intent of the statute to impose inequality, restrictions, and disabilities, and creating unequal marriages because of the dislike of the majority rather than legitimate policy concerns.

Letting society decide

In practical terms, these two decisions avoid deciding the ultimate issues on same-sex marriage, thus allowing state and federal governments and courts to decide those issues. In states that recognize same-sex marriage, the federal authorities are bound by that recognition, but other states remain free to interpret their own constitutions and statutes, and the trial courts will see many cases over the next decade applying those state constitutions and statutes to the federal and state constitutions.

The effect of two people being married has profound implications in the law. Federal, state, and local governments treat married people as being one person for many purposes, and the answer to the question of whether two people are or ought to be married is a question as potentially destabilizing to American society as racial segregation or abortion. Over time, the lower courts either will reach consensus or will remain divided. If consensus is reached, it may not be necessary for the Supreme Court to decide anything. If consensus is not reached, then a large number of judges will have considered the issues and people throughout the nation will have thought and debated the matter in detail. The Supreme Court will thus have set up a situation in which its ultimate decision will be approved of as being just and natural, as it will be based upon a large body of information and informed debate.

Basic Principles For Rightful Living


Nature is our great human teacher. It is from experiencing Life as fully as possible that we learn and grow and mature into that which we inherently are. Maturing means living is a constant state of becoming, and the gradual self-realization of our true spiritual natures. The process is an endless evolving and expanding of our levels of consciousness. The Ageless Wisdom tells us that life on planet Earth is a "School for Souls." It is a hierarchal system of learning. With each new physical incarnation, we accumulate more and more experience and knowledge so that over time we gain the wisdom necessary for living a life of righteousness; realizing and accepting in our hearts what is Right from what is Wrong, and acting accordingly.


What Nature reveals to us, if we have the eyes to see and the ears to hear, is that there are some basic Principles in Nature, sometimes referred to as "Universal Laws," we must come to know and adhere to. One such basic Principle is that our lives are consistently changing and undergoing an endless series of new experiences. This Principle is known to some as "The Law of Periodicity." In our personal lives these changes are more rapid in our earlier years, but tend to become more stagnant as we gain our middle years. The reason for this is that many of us reach a point where we "nail down" our view of life and the world and believe that we know more or less all the basics we need to know for living a materialistic existence. Society is in many ways static and viewed as "just more of the same old, same old.' Another view is that the whole universe appears to be ceaselessly evolving. Yet, the wise tell us that there is only the Eternal Now; that past, present and future are materialistic plane illusions and do not exist on the higher levels of spirituality or in the Macrocosmic planes of our solar system. At this materialistic level of existence, this is our way of viewing life and the world. To gain a true vision of the Principles of Nature, they say, requires keen internal insight and intuition; considered a higher level of truer comprehension than intelligent reasoning. Intuition is Pure Knowledge, and is always spiritually correct and true. It requires no analyzing or working out intellectually; it is direct insight straight from a higher spiritual level than that needing the mind to reason out. A truism to be gained from this simple insight is that an empirical, mechanistic paradigm science can never discover the Principles of Life. Direct Knowledge requires no symbolic or verbal interpretations.

The wise ones tell us at this materialistic level of existence we need to allow for and go along with Nature's endless metamorphoses in our lives, instead of accepting a world "fixed" for all practical purposes. Fixed lives at a certain point become stagnant, repetitious and crystallized and resist change; fear of the unknown freezes us in place. Our lives become more and more limited instead of open to the fullness of existence. The hippies of the sixties had these sayings: "Go with the flow;" and "Don't paddle the river, it flows by itself."

Another basic Principle of Nature is that every form in Nature is unique unto itself. Nothing is exactly like any other thing in existence. This Principle needs further clarification since it leads to much confusion and ignorance of our true natures. This individuality gives rise to the false belief we each are separate from the Whole. But uniqueness does not equate with separateness. Being different each from the other does not involve our being each separated from the Whole of Life. There is only ONE LIFE, and we each are an inseparable part of that whole, like the waves in the ocean.

Another basic Principle of Nature reveals to us that the universe consists of nothing but Energy, having a positive and a negative duality; the Yin and the Yang of the Orient; or the male and female of our species. From this the wise glean the wisdom that "Harmony can never come from Sameness." This duality of Nature's Energy is what gives life motion and vitality to our existence. Yet, this very duality must be balanced to bring about Harmony.

To create true Harmony in our own lives, we need to live a life of balanced activity; the Golden Mean or the Tao of the Orientals. It means to "go with the flow," and quit unnecessarily interfering with Nature's progress. The great majority of parents violate this basic Principle daily, especially when trying, because of some personal insecurity, to over-control their children in the name of protecting them from all possible forms of harm. Insecurity breeds attempts to the needless over-controlling of others, but usually not of the self. And this is true of our society as well. It was the Austrian philosopher Karl Popper who told us that in an insecure society, such as ours is today, our leaders demand undue interference and the over-controlling of our lives; which means directly interfering with our basic Constitutional Rights. Insecurity and fear of terrorism leads to violating the basic Principles of our American way of life. The Constitution of the United States is what makes us different from every other country on earth. It needs constant protection from infringements regardless of the reason. Our Constitution was penned by men far wiser than our leadership of today.

We need to trust and have faith in the Laws of Nature and learn to cooperate with its ways. Nature provides us the means of gaining truer knowledge of the universe and of ourselves.

Another basic Principle of Nature is the "Law of Attraction and Repulsion." It is this basic Principle which is at the core of our human relationships. We become attracted to and emotionally attached to others because we feel as individuals we are incomplete within ourselves. Again, our idea of individual separateness is relevant here. We are repelled by those we perceive as hostile to us in some way, or because of some hidden fear from our past lives. There is much superstition and ignorance that goes into this repulsion. Tolerance toward all beings is the solution to this repulsion.

Too often one of the parties to a relationship tries to change the other to suit his or her own desires and needs. In other words, to overcome individual differences and bring about sameness, which prevents any harmony being created in that relationship. Harmonious relationships require a constant respect for and acceptance of the individualistic nature of our mates. Mature couples grow together by "going with the flow of life." The Tao speaks of non-resistance. The divorce or dissolution rate in our modern society shows the effects of these attempted controlling activities and the imbalances that arise in relationships lacking real human love and understanding.

Mentioned above were the words, "past lives." If Life is truly a "school for souls," as the wise ones contend, then by necessity we require multiple lives to gain true spiritual wisdom and spiritual advancement, and a continual expansion of our levels of consciousness. Most of the world outside our western civilization automatically accepts reincarnation and its other half, Karma, as a priori, or self-evident. There are far more Orientals than Occidentals on this earth, and the East is much older and in many ways historically wiser than we in the West. All of our Avatars and religious creators were from the East. One reason being they are far less concerned with this materialistic existence than we Occidentals; or were in the past before being contaminated by western ideals. Their beliefs about the "Constitution of Man" and Nature have endured far longer than any western concepts. Even our Biblical Christ comes from the Orient, where He is referred to as the Bodhisattva, and named Lord Maitreya.


There are a visible world of Effects and an invisible world of Causes, so say the wise ones. The whole wisdom of the Ancients is based on this concept, and the modern day occultists, the true seekers of truth, study these hidden or invisible Causes. One of the Master's of the Wisdom has said: "There are two kinds of people in the world: Those who are awake and know, and those who are asleep and do not know."

Another way of saying this is, there are the Wise and there are the Ignorant. Ignorance merely means not knowing those things that exist outside the person's awareness, and remain so until the very moment of discovery. Another saying by a Master is this: "There is a Truth that does exist, and within Humanity hides the potential for its discovery." The Wise ones are awake and are the knower's of the Basic Principles and Laws of Nature. Their wisdom is as old as humanity itself. These wise ones spent many lifetimes in an inner search for this universal Wisdom; of the Causes behind the Effects in an endless pursuit of Truth. "Truth cannot be communicated; only Self-discovered."

We are all "Sons of God," in the sense we were created equally in our essence, but we are not all equal on the evolutionary arc in our ascent back to the "House of The Father," as was the message of Jesus and many other world Avatars who lived as Mentors and Guides to show the rest of us how to live a life of righteousness.

There can be no honest argument that the world today is one of endless strife and chaos and much misery, pain and suffering. The great Gautama Buddha summed it up by saying all this is due to Human Ignorance, defined as endless desires and attachment to things of this materialistic world. which limits our reach for true wisdom. We have to want to know and to have enough dedication for Truth to spend many lives in search of it.

A study of the Basic Principles of Nature show us the way to this Wisdom. It begins with a deep study and observation of ourselves throughout the day since we are each an inseparable part of the Basic Principles of Nature. The Oracle of the Delphi admonished us eons ago, Gnothe Seauton, or "Man, Know Thyself." It is a first step to further wisdom. We need to be consciously aware of all our daily thoughts and decisions and admit to our real motives in all that we do. In lieu of our self-centered concerns and our trivial and petty daily interest, we need to develop and practice Universal Love, Altruism and sense of Brotherhood toward all. The attainment of these aspects of spiritual growth is the real purpose of our existence and the reason we are alive on this planet. These are the means to true spiritual advancement, and a study of the basic Principles of Nature or Universal Laws, is the beginning step to this achievement.